Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Wednesday 22 May.

CATIEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 20 May at Seven o'clock.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 22 May.

Mr. Speaker: As the next four Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS)BILL (By Order)

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Wednesday 22 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Manufacturing Exports

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the current level of United Kingdom manufacturing industry exports.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): In the latest quarter, manufactured export volumes —excluding erratics — were 3 per cent. up on a year earlier, compared with a fall in imports of 4 per cent.

Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that during the past two years, the United Kingdom's share of the world trade in manufactures has increased, that United Kingdom manufacturing exports have increased by 18 per cent. and that this year investment in United Kingdom manufacturing industry is expected to increase by 60 per cent. over the 1981 figure? Does not that make a mockery of Opposition attempts to spread doom and gloom?

Mr. Mellor: A number of manufacturing industries are certainly going through a difficult time at present, and nothing that I say is intended to diminish that fact. As the main answer to the question and some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) show, manufacturing industry is well capable of bouncing back from this recession and there are all manner of good statistics to be drawn from our performance. When points are made about investment, the extent to which investment increased in the late 1980s should be borne in mind.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Chief Secretary acknowledge that export-led manufacturing industry plays an important part in this country's employment base? The Chief Secretary and his fellow Ministers were quick enough to claim the credit when they thought that unemployment was coming down. Now that we are in the 13th month in which the unemployment figures have risen, rather than fallen, will the Chief Secretary, on behalf of the Government's Treasury team, come to the Dispatch Box and take his share of the blame?

Mr. Mellor: It is true that manufacturing export performance is important in this country. That is why, despite the Labour party's perennial endeavour to talk down British industry and important parts of it, it is worth while saluting our manufacturing performance. Manufacturing exports have done well in recent years. In the British car industry, figures for the first quarter of this year show a 40 per cent. increase in exports compared with a year earlier. That is impressive and shows the underlying strength of British manufacturing.

Income Tax

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the basic and highest rates of income tax in 1978–79; and what are the equivalent rates in the current tax year.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The basic and highest rates of income tax on income in 1978 –79 were 33 per cent. and 98 per cent. respectively. The equivalent current rates are 25 per cent. and 40 per cent.

Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since they have been in office, the Government have consistently kept their promises to reduce the rates of income tax? Will he confirm that all past Labour Governments have increased income tax rates? Will he further confirm that under the last Labour Government, the brain drain reached record levels, with management figures going abroad because they were too highly taxed in this country?

Mr. Maude: I can certainly confirm that we have consistently and steadily brought down income tax rates and we propose to continue doing so. My hon. Friend was not quite right about the record of past Labour Governments. In fairness to the Labour party, I should say that the Attlee Government briefly reduced the basic rates of income tax before putting them up again, and the Ramsey MacDonald Government of 1924, during its nine months in office, failed to put up basic tax rates. But with those exceptions, Labour Governments throughout history have always raised income tax.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Financial Secretary agree that the combination of the tax system and the benefit system means that low-income families are being taxed by a combination of tax and benefit withdrawal at a rate of more than 90 per cent.? Does he agree that, in the new classless society that has been created, we have incentives for the rich, but not for the poor?

Mr. Maude: Absolutely not. The intention behind the tax reforms that we have introduced was to take out of tax 2 million people who would have paid tax if the regime left by the Labour Government had remained in force. Two million people who would have paid tax under a Labour Government do not pay any tax at all. The benefit reforms that we have introduced were specifically designed to reduce the high marginal rate of the combination of tax and withdrawal of benefit to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is better now than it was under the regime left by the Labour Government.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend believe that enough people have understood the point made by the Labour party that it intends to introduce a savings penalty of 9 per cent. on all savings income of more than £3,000? Would not that reduce the funds to building societies and cut the chances of people borrowing money to own their own homes?

Mr. Maude: I find it difficult to understand how the Labour party can in one breath proclaim the merits of saving and investment and say that it proposes to increase the tax on savings. We believe that it is right that people should save. It is good for individuals and for families because it makes them more independent and less dependent on the state and it increases the funds available for investment. That is important. It will be interesting to hear how the Labour Front Benchers square that with their proposal to increase the tax on savings, or does Labour simply not care?

Mrs. Beckett: rose ——

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not allowed to answer at Question Time, at least not until we sit on the Government Benches.
Having given the figures for income tax in 1979 and the present year, will the Financial Secretary now give the figures for national insurance contribution rates in 1979 and the present year, for value added tax rates in 1979 and the present year and for the overall tax burden in 1979 and the present year, which include both those figures as well as the cuts in income tax?

Mr. Maude: As I understand the rules of the House, if the hon. Lady wishes to table a question to me about these fascinating and important matters, I shall provide her with a detailed and specific answer. However, as this question is about something completely different, I shall decline to do so. The hon. Lady mentioned the overall tax burden now compared with—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked a question about the tax burden and I shall provide an answer. If Labour Front Benchers would quieten down, they would have an opportunity to hear it.
It is right to say that the tax burden in 1980–81 increased substantially compared to that in 1978–79. It was necessary to raise taxes to pay off the enormous burden of debt levied on the country by the Labour Government—the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was a member of the Cabinet. The Labour Government reduced the tax burden, but they did so at the expense of increasing the tax burden on future generations. That is not a responsible way to proceed. Since 1980–81 the total tax burden has steadily fallen and it continues to do so.

Inflation

Mr. Beith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which index of inflation he treats as the most reliable; and whether he has any plans for a new index.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): I pay close attention to a range of indicators of inflation. I am currently considering the recommendation of the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service for a new index of consumer prices comparable with that of our European Community partners.

Mr. Beith: When the retail prices index is published tomorrow, will the Chancellor draw attention to the advice of the present Prime Minister, given a year ago, that the RPI is an inaccurate measure of underlying inflation? Is it true that the Bank of England has developed a new index of contemporary inflation which suggest that underlying inflation is remaining stubbornly high and may be influencing the Governor's current advice to the Government?

Mr. Lamont: On the first point, the RPI could hardly measure underlying inflation as it is a measure of headline inflation. It is the measure which matters to wage bargainers and to consumers, so it is good news for the country that it is coming down. It matters to pensioners, it matters to savers and it matters to British industry. All that the hon. Gentleman does is sit and nit-pick. We have said consistently that when looking at inflationary pressures we look at the underlying rate. The underlying


rate, excluding mortgage interest payments, has come down by 1 per cent. in the past six months. We are winning the battle against inflation and we shall go on winning it.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Surely the headline rate is what matters most to people with mortgages and community charge bills to pay. Is not the underlying rate likely to take a little longer to drop because of high wage settlements last autumn? Is not it likely to come down anyway later in the year if current policies are maintained?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Obviously, the underlying rate comes down less quickly than the headline rate. The underlying rate did not go up nearly as much as the headline rate did, so there is no great issue to be made out of that. My hon. Friend is also right about earnings in manufacturing industry. It is extremely good news that, in the past two months, the rate of increase in earnings in manufacturing industry has gone down by 1 per cent. That shows that people are adjusting to inflation coming down.

Interest Rates

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what United Kingdom bank base rates were in June 1983 and June 1987; and what they are now.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Bank base rates were reduced to 91 per cent. from 10 per cent. on 15 June 1983 and stood at 9 per cent. throughout June 1987. They now stand at 12 per cent.

Mr. Corbett: I thank the Chancellor for that reply. Why does he keep insisting that Government economic policies are working when almost 3 million of our fellow citizens are not? Does he see any connection between the loss of 1,000 manufacturing jobs each day for the first 90 working days of this year and high interest rates? Will he acknowledge that electors were looking forward to a June election because it is only during election periods that the Government manage to get interest rates down?

Mr. Lamont: Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the previous Labour Government, inflation was never lower than 7·4 per cent. We shall have an average rate of inflation for the whole of this year lower than that.

Mr. Tim Smith: Contrary to the pessimistic forecasts of the anarcho-monetarists who wrote a letter to The Times a couple of months ago, is not it clear that Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism has been a great success, that it has led to exchange rate stability and lower interest rates and that there is every prospect that those will continue?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Only a few months ago, when we joined the exchange rate mechanism, people said that our only choice was to devalue and leave the ERM or we would be unable to cut interest rates. In fact, we have been able to cut interest rates by 3 per cent. That has been good news for business and it has also been extremely good news for mortgage holders. Since last October, the average mortgage payment has come down from £290 to £ 240 per month, saving the average mortgage payer £50 a month. First-time buyers are doing even better because of competition between the building societies.

Dr. Marek: Will the Chancellor confirm and afterwards perhaps explain why interest rates were 12 per cent. or more for 60 months between 1979 and 1991 whereas, starting with the Attlee Government in 1945 all the way through until 1979, they were higher than 12 per cent. for only 26 months? Under the Conservative Administration of the past 12 years, interest rates seemed to be lower than 12 per cent. only in 1983, in 1987 and now in 1991. Are not the temporary low interest rates a politically expedient, but economically inadvisable blip? As soon as the Government win the next election —they hope —they will raise interest rates again.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is always telling us not to go back and make comparisons with the Labour Government, but now he seems to want us to go back all the way to the second world war, to a period when there was exchange control and control of bank lending. Interest rates all over the world were higher in the 1980s than they were in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s or 1970s. That has not prevented Britain's economy from growing more rapidly in the 1980s than before, despite the fact that we have had relatively high interest rates.

Corporation Tax

Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the corporation tax rates and thresholds for small businesses; and what were the equivalent figures for 1979.

Mr. Maude: The small companies rate of corporation tax is 25 per cent. compared with 42 per cent. at the time of the 1979 general election. The profits limit for the small companies rate will be raised this year to £ 250,000, compared with £ 50,000 in 1979, and the threshold for marginal relief will be £ 1,250,000, compared with £ 85,000 in 1979.

Mr. Gill: As one who vividly remembers the difficulties and frustrations of running a business under the last Labour Administration, may I say how much I welcome my hon. Friend's reply? The relative improvement since 1979 is substantial and welcome, but will my hon. Friend never lose sight of the fact that substantial additional benefits can be gained by continuing to reduce the rates of tax in the corporate sector?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend puts a powerful case. It is worth pointing out that, at 33 per cent., the main rate of corporation tax for the coming year is now lower than the small companies rate was under Labour, and that is a huge benefit for small and large companies alike. We now have a corporation tax regime which is more generous and lower than that in any other country in the EC or in the Group of Seven. That puts the United Kingdom in an advantageous position which we shall seek to maintain and enhance. The House is waiting for some answers to the questions that we put to the Labour party about its proposal for new capital allowances. We want to know how much that would cost and whether the Labour party would increase the rate of corporation tax to pay for it.

Ms. Short: Labour Members of Parliament in Birmingham recently met the West Midlands Employers Federation. The situation there is desperate and worrying for manufacturing firms which are trying to invest and survive. The Minister should not mislead the House about its seriousness. Manufacturers badly want to be able to


offset corporation tax against investment, which will result in higher investment in our country. Will the hon. Gentleman consider that?

Mr. Maude: I am a west midlands Member myself and I am aware of the difficulties that some businesses are experiencing in the west midlands, as elsewhere. I am also aware of the news from the car industry. Production of cars in the west midlands, as elsewhere, has increased this year. The number of cars produced for export has more than doubled and overall production has increased compared with last year. Exports have increased by 40 per cent. with the British car industry now exporting two thirds as many cars as are imported, compared with one third only a year or two ago. That is good news. It would be nice to hear the hon. Lady giving the credit that is due to the managers and work force in the British car industry who, in the past decade, have transformed the way in which the industry performs. It is now a powerful and good industry, not the joke that it used to be.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated public sector borrowing requirement for this financial year; and what are the comparable figures for the United States of America and the average of all European Community countries.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The latest forecast is a public sector borrowing requirement of £7·9 billion, around 1¼ per cent. of GDP. Substantially larger fiscal deficits are expected in the United States and on average among European Community countries.

Mr. Fishburn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that of the seven largest industrial countries, only Japan has a stronger fiscal position than Britain? Will he further confirm that to borrow 1 per cent. of GNP after some years of healthy surplus is altogether different from borrowing 6 per cent., as happened year after year under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The fact that we have run a strong fiscal position has meant that we have been able to spend money on priority programmes. As my hon. Friend said, under the last Labour Government, the PSBR averaged 6 ¼per cent. of GDP. That is equivalent today to £40 billion. We have repaid debt of some £27 billion, enabling us to save £3 billion a year for the taxpayer —the equivalent of 50 new hospitals a year or 10 per cent. more on health care. The fastest growing part of the Labour party's public expenditure programme would be debt interest.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Recognising the linkage between the public sector borrowing requirement and interest rates, why was it that in 1983 and in 1987, which were both election years, interest rates were at the bottom of the trough? Does the Chancellor intend to orchestrate another cut in interest rates, against the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England? If the right hon. Gentleman opposes that action, what does he intend to do?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. The trough in interest rates occurred in 1988, not 1987. The hon. Gentleman ought to check his facts. There is no

disagreement between the Governor of the Bank of England and myself over interest rate policy. Our position is that interest rates will be maintained in order to safeguard our position in the exchange rate mechanism, and we will have the flexibility to reduce interest rates as and when inflation comes down.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that of all the unreliable statistics on which the Treasury has to pontificate, the public sector borrowing requirement is the most unreliable of all—as events have proved so many times in the past? It is always a mistake to base too much of the Government's economic policy on the current PSBR figure.

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the PSBR is the difference between two very big magnitudes, and therefore is subject to enormous swings. However, our interest rate policy is not based on the PSBR. I think that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), was making the point that the PSBR has a consequential effect on interest rates.

Manufacturing Trade

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what year was manufacturing trade last in surplus.

Mr. Mellor: In 1982.

Mr. Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that Britain enjoyed a manufacturing trade surplus every year since the industrial revolution, until this mob came into government, and finished up with a deficit in 1982? We had a trade surplus when we had the spinning-jenny and when we invented the steam engine, but now, under this gang of spivs, we have a plastic economy —and the wheels have dropped off.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the typically understated way in which he asked his question, and for auditioning for the job of conducting the proms at the same time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the manufacturing deficit turns on the increase in exports and in imports. As it happens, during the period that we moved into deficit, the increase in exports year-on-year was running at 7½ per cent. between 1983 and 1990. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to have the comparative figure under Labour between 1974 and 1979, when manufacturing exports achieved a year-on-year increase of 2 per cent. The increased prosperity of the 1980s of course brought increased demand for imported goods.

Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to study reports on manufacturing industry in the north of England? They show that it is holding up very well in the northern region and that small firms are doing better than large companies in the present recession. Is not that a credit to the Government, who have pursued a policy of broadening employment from the large manufacturing industries, such as shipbuilding and steel, across a wider variety of small businesses employing people in many different types of work?

Mr. Mellor: What my hon. Friend has said is true not only of the northern region but of south Wales and Scotland, where a much more diversified manufacturing economy now exists than ever before. Most notably, this


shows the confidence of overseas investors in the United Kingdom and in those regions. The number of Japanese companies now investing in the north is especially noteworthy.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Chief Secretary not appreciate that, as well as the figures that show fast-rising unemployment, we have today seen figures released by the Central Statistical Office that reveal that investment has plummeted by 20 per cent. in the past year? Is that not the most awful way to prepare for the operation of the single market after 1992? What do the Government intend to do about that fall in investment?

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to disclose that any fall in investment represents a fall from the dramatically higher level —indeed, the historically high level —of the past few years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I gave him the figures yesterday. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want to ask questions and then to intervene from a sedentary position, but I shall give him the figures anyway.
Total business investment in 1978 amounted to £35·8 billion at 1985 prices. By 1988 the figure had risen to £ 52 billion, in 1989 it had reached ££56 billion, and in 1990 it stood at £55 billion. To criticise the Government for a fall from historically high levels is not to go to the root of the matter.
Of course we regret any reduction in investment, even when it represents a fall from very high levels, but, given the performance of manufacturing industry in the export market, even during the current recession, I am confident that investment will soon bounce back to the levels that we achieved in the late 1980s.

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the latest trend in the balance of trade for manufactured goods.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The deficit on United Kingdom trade in manufactures has fallen sharply. In the first quarter of 1991 the deficit was £1·3 billion—less than 1 per cent. of GDP and the lowest for over five years.

Mr. Irvine: Can my hon. Friend confirm that that encouraging trend in the balance of trade in manufactured goods is reflected not only in a fall in imports, but in an increase in exports? Does she agree that that in turn reflects great credit on the competitive performance of our manufacturing exporters in world markets?

Mrs. Shephard: I certainly agree. In 1990, the United Kingdom volume share of world trade in manufactures rose for the second successive year. Mention has already been made of the splendid performance of the car industry; in the latest quarter, the volume of exports was up 40 per cent. on the previous year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—and exports are due to increase.

Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister aware that the Governor of the Bank of England described our recession as home grown? Given the massive reductions in export services, in assistance for innovation, and in training, how does the Minister expect us to regain our place in world manufacturing?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has slightly misquoted the Governor of the Bank of England, who qualified that observation.

Employee Share Ownership

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry concerning recent Budget measures to encourage wider employee share ownership.

Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend and I meet the CBI frequently. The CBI has given warm support to our Budget proposals on employee share ownership.

Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note that management is now increasingly on our side, encouraging employee share schemes and, in particular, welcoming the Budget proposals for schemes which given an incentive to all employees to participate, rather than retaining the old executive share basis? Will my hon. Friend join me in hoping that more trade unions will welcome that development, which can be shown to be in the interests of all employees and should therefore be in the interests of the unions as well?

Mr. Maude: There has certainly been a good response to the various measures introduced by the Government over a period of years to encourage employee share ownership. A total of 2¼ million employees have now benefited from all-employee schemes. In addition, the number of employees in profit-related pay schemes has increased by no less than 50 per cent. in the past year.
That strikes us as the right way to approach participation by employees in the firms in which they work—in stark contrast with Labour's approach, which seems to be to hand the boardroom keys to the trade union bosses who are Labour's paymasters.

Mr. William Ross: Given that one of the ways in which employee participation and ownership was increased was through the sale of nationalised industries, will the Minister give an assurance to the House that the employees of Northern Ireland Electricity and the citizens of Northern Ireland will have an opportunity to bid for and own shares in Northern Ireland Electricity when it is sold off?

Mr. Maude: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but it is inconceivable that he would propose arrangements which would do anything other than what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is of great importance that when nationalised industries are privatised we encourage the employees of firms to participate by direct ownership in those companies and that the local population and customers of the industry or service also become owners. That seems to us to be desirable.

Mr. Butcher: When my hon. Friend next meets the Confederation of British Industry, will he discuss its suggestion that compensation for house owners and owners of other properties affected by planning applications should be at the rate of 125 per cent. of market value? If such an increase causes an improvement in the rate at which approvals are considered, it would save an awful lot of money

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about share ownership.

Mr. Butcher: I was referring to the CBI and its agenda for discussions with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maude: Whether my hon. Friend's question is in order or not, it is a great delight to all of us to see him back in the House in good health and reinvigorated to take part in our deliberations and to take a characteristically forthright and splendid role in our debates. 
We discuss a range of matters with the CBI, although the matter to which my hon. Friend referred is not, I confess, one that I have discussed with the CBI myself. However, I look forward to doing so in the near future.

Fixed Investment

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which of the last 10 calendar years total fixed investment fell by more than 9·75 per cent.

Mr. Mellor: None. Total fixed investment in 1990 at constant prices was higher than in any year other than the past three.

Mr. McAvoy: In an earlier answer the Minister confirmed that the level of manufactured investment had fallen by 20 per cent. in the past year. Will he also confirm that the level of manufacturing investment as a proportion of fixed investment is now lower than when the Government took office? For the sake of British industry, why does not the Treasury Bench resign and let Labour do the job?

Mr. Mellor: The key statistic is total investment in business in this country, which has shown a dramatic increase. I have given the figures. The House might be interested to know that in the 1980s total investment growth was higher in the United Kingdom than in any other country in the Group of Seven, bar one. Needless to say, between 1970 and 1980 Britain was at the bottom of that investment growth league.

Mr. Butterfill: Is it not true that our growth during the three-year period to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred was 43 per cent., which was faster than in Germany, France or Italy?

Mr. Mellor: Indeed, it was. The changes that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made in 1984 in corporation tax rates, and other benefits which resulted from the Government's policies, led to an unprecedented explosion in business investment. It is inevitable that if industrial development slows, the level of investment cannot be sustained every year. However, it is clear that even this year the investment rate will be well above that which prevailed for business generally in the 1970s in real terms. That is the key statistic.

Mrs. Fyfe: Looking to 1991 and beyond, does the Minister accept that the International Monetary Fund report predicts a fall in investment for 1991 and that the Confederation of British Industry is even more pessimistic in its forecasts? Is it not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) said, that that bunch on the other side of the House ought to

resign? Indeed, many people with considerably less important failures to record have shot themselves in despair

Mr. Mellor: It is astonishing that Labour Members think that they are on to a good point about investment when the only way they can jeer at the Government's achievements is to compare this 12 months with the record levels established under the Government in the late 1980s. On the question of business investment, any comparison with Labour years will make only too clear how much of an advance there has been since then. In the 1970s, business investment in this country was stagnant. That is the key point which everyone should bear in mind.

Interest Rates

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when interest rates were last at 10 per cent.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Bank base rates last stood at 10 per cent. in July 1988.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he tell mortgage payers and businesses, in language that they can understand, why interest rates are not 2 per cent. lower? Is he aware that every time he reduces interest rates the banks put them up by 0·5 per cent. or 1 per cent. so that businesses are not at present benefiting from his policy on interest rates? Is he running the economy, or is it being run by the Governor of the Bank of England?

Mr. Lamont: On the first point, it is not true that the benefits of the reductions in interest rates have not come through to mortgage payers. As I explained earlier, the result of the 3 per cent. drop in interest rates since last October has been a payments reduction of about £50 per month for the average mortgage payer. That is a very dramatic improvement in take-home pay. Furthermore, as a result of competition between the banks and the building societies, the first-time buyer has seen an even bigger decrease. The market is working, and it is following interest rates down.

Mr. Wigley: If the inflation rate is coming down as rapidly as the Government believe, if sterling is so strong against the deutschmark and if consumer demand and manufacturing investment are low, surely the time has come to reduce the base rates further in order to stimulate the economy.

Mr. Lamont: I do not believe that it would be right to reduce interest rates in order to stimulate the economy, as the hon. Gentleman puts it. Interest rates should, indeed, bear a relationship to inflation.

CBI

Mr. Squire: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received recently from the CBI about business expectations.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I am in regular contact with the CBI. The latest CBI quarterly industrial survey shows a marked improvement in the trend of forward-looking indicators for business optimism, orders and output.

Mr. Squire: Did my right hon. Friend notice two particularly salient points in that survey—first, that the number of firms expecting higher unit costs was the lowest


for three years and, secondly, that the overall level of business optimism was the highest for a year? Do not he and the country expect from the merchants of doom and gloom on the Opposition Benches some recognition of this improvement?

Mr. Lamont: The Opposition seem to have a vested interest in failure and seem to want bad developments. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Another point that he might have mentioned is that the CBI survey also shows that the number of firms expecting to increase prices is very low. As my hon. Friend says, the CBI survey has a good track record as a forward indicator of growth in the economy. Everything in the surveys is consistent with my Budget forecast that the recovery will begin in the second half of the year.

Mr. Boateng: Putting aside the merchants of gloom and doom, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with the remark of the chairman of Marks and Spencer that business is in for a "longish, hardish, roughish time"? If the Chancellor does not agree with that, let him answer this question: who knows more about running a business in these times—the chairman of Marks and Spencer or himself?

Mr. Lamont: I am sure that the chairman of Marks and Spencer knows much more about running Marks and Spencer—that is his job. I have always said that business is difficult and tough at the moment. But, equally, I have said —and I have given my reasons for this belief—that business will turn up in the second half of the year. All the indications are there. Surveys by the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, as well as the 3i's survey of business, including small businesses, all indicate that the business climate is slowly but definitely improving.

Inflation

Mr. Burns: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest year-on-year rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: All-items RPI inflation was 8·2 per cent. in March. It is expected to fall sharply over the coming months to 4 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1991.

Mr. Burns: In welcoming the improving inflation figures, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to confirm that inflation is on target to reach 4 per cent. in the fourth quarter of this year? Does he agree that it ill behoves certain individuals constantly to talk down the improving inflation figures, given that between 1974 and 1979 inflation increased by more than 100 per cent. and that the best year-on-year rate of inflation in that period was only 7·4 per cent.?

Mr. Mellor: It is certainly true that during those years average inflation was 15½per cent. Indeed, the lowest point that inflation reached in those years is equivalent to the average that it has been during 12 years under us. I confirm, as I did in my original answer, that we are on course for a 4 per cent. level at the end of the year.

Mr. Douglas: How does the Minister explain, apart from the statistical measures of inflation, the traditional view that inflation is a measure whereby the claims on resources in terms of money exceed those resources in real

terms? Therefore, how does he explain that the resources that we have available to call into use, in terms of labour and capital, are under-utilised? How does he propose to alter that situation?

Mr. Mellor: I find that an utterly inexplicable question. I shall read the record and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

The Prime Minister(Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree that today's unemployment figures prove conclusively that the Conservative party has one economic policy only—that of mass unemployment? Is it true that the Government intend to introduce some form of compulsory work scheme to reduce the numbers of jobless people in this country, or will he be following the example of his predecessor by adding to the 30 or so fiddles in the calculation of the number of unemployed? Or will he—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is taking a great deal of time from his colleagues.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Or will the Prime Minister do what is in the best interests of his country, by resigning and making way for a Labour Government with a genuine strategy on jobs and industry?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is being both silly and graceless. I am as concerned about unemployment as the hon. Gentleman is, and it is precisely for that reason that I propose to continue with the policies to get inflation down, to ensure that there is a stable basis for the creation of jobs. There are a million extra jobs today than there were when the Conservative Government came to power and, in so far as making way for a Labour Government is concerned, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has said, because of Labour policy on the minimum wage people will lose their jobs.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that it is not part of his policy to increase taxation on earnings, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who proposes to increase tax on earnings for one in 15 people, the shadow Chancellor who intends to increase it for one in eight, or the people who are really master-minding the hidden Labour party agenda, who intend to increase taxes for everyone who earns?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is certainly correct that Labour Members seem to be in something of a muddle over their tax and spending figures. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—who, alas, is not here at the moment—has said:
Yes, of course, in an ideal world we would like to do what the Liberal Democrats are saying and say yes, we'd increase taxation.


That is their official policy.

Mr. Kinnock: If, as the Prime Minister claimed last Friday, his economic policies are working, why are 2,175,000 people in our country not working?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the intention—and it is beginning to show clear signs of success—is to reduce inflation so that we may begin, yet again, to add to the 1 million jobs that we have created during the period of this Conservative Government. There is only one stable and sure way to create jobs and keep them—to keep inflation low, a policy which we shall pursue and he never could.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister seems to forget that today's unemployment figures show the highest April rise in unemployment since the war, that since he has been Prime Minister 3,000 people have lost their jobs every working day, that output is down and that investment has plummeted by 20 per cent. over the year. When the Prime Minister's policies are responsible for causing that huge damage, and when he has no answers and no policies to get out of it, is it not time that he went?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about unemployment, he should not advocate policies that will artifically increase it, such as the minimum wage. The Institute of Fiscal Studies said of his minimum wage policy:
If the point is to avoid people being poor this is an extraordinarily stupid way of doing it.
If he does not like the IFS, perhaps Mr. Joe Haines of the Daily Mirror is more to his taste. He said:
The minimum wage proposals won't work and if they do, won't help.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Will my right hon. Friend visit, in the near future, a hospital that has opted out? Does he agree that yesterday Lord McColl explained clearly the benefits to patients when a hospital opts out—putting patients before bureaucracy?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will also explain to people in the vicinity that when a hospital opts out, it opts out of bureaucracy and not out of the national health service—contrary to the dishonest literature passed around by the Labour candidate for Monmouth, which the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) should repudiate.

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAvoy: rose——[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down.

Mr. McAvoy: Conservative Members seem very nervous. In 1979, the Tories promised that, if elected, they would not double VAT, but once elected they increased it from 8 to 15 per cent. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister failed to answer a question on future levels of VAT. Can this simple and honest Prime Minister give a simple and honest answer to the question? If the Tories are re-elected, will they further increase VAT?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman graciously concedes that we shall be in a position to decide that at the

next general election, but I want no lectures on value added tax from the party which put tax on children's sweets, even though its leader did not know it.

Mr. Stevens: rose——[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Mr. Stevens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to raise the status of teachers is by giving them a pay review body, rather than reducing their take-home pay by increasing their tax?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our purpose in introducing a review body was to raise the status of teachers, and I believe that teachers across the country will accept that. The Opposition's policy, on the other hand, is entirely clear—to take away parental choice and, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has admitted, to increase taxation on a large number of teachers.

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Salmond: Has the Prime Minister heard of the great gas robbery? Is he aware that, last week, the Government gave permission for the development of up to 12 North sea fields to take gas from off the coast of Aberdeen straight to the north-east of England to generate cheap electricity, and that that will be done with public support through offsets against petroleum revenue tax? Why, under the right hon. Gentleman's Administration, is Scotland set to become the first country in history to pay international oil companies to take away its most valuable natural resource?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might make some acknowledgement of the tremendous asset to Scotland that investment there has been —not least by the oil and gas industries.

German Chancellor

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of Germany; and what subjects he intends to discuss with him.

The Prime Minister: I expect to see the Chancellor next at the European Council in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June, when we shall discuss whatever business is before the Council.

Mr. Hunter: In the course of his continuing dialogue with Chancellor Kohl, has my right hon. Friend found grounds to believe that effective common European foreign, defence and security policies are attainable, or have the events of a few months ago demonstrated that, at least for the time being, they are unattainable?

The Prime Minister: What is entirely clear is that, whatever may be decided, NATO must remain the core of our defence for the future, and that includes beyond any doubt the continued presence in Europe of United States and Canadian forces. But I think that there is scope for improving the co-operation of European views within


NATO and the effectiveness of the European response outside the NATO area. We have put forward detailed proposals for both in the intergovernmental conferences.

Mr. Wareing: As it is believed that Herr Karl Otto Poehl is about to offer his resignation as president of the Bundesbank, will the Prime Minister be telling the German Chancellor that he is about to offer a free transfer to Mr. Leigh-Pemberton, the Governor of the Bank of England, and offer him to the German Chancellor free of charge?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Ian Taylor: When my right hon. Friend meets the German Chancellor, will he discuss the implications of the recent European Commission decision to intervene in German industry to remove the subsidies that the west German Government have been paying to west German industry for some years? And is not that a sign that the Single European Act and the single market are working very effectively and levelling the playing field for the benefit of Britain?

The Prime Minister: I hope and believe that that is the case. We certainly wish to see the continued reduction of subsidies throughout Europe.

Engagements

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with the chief executive of Alderhey hospital, who has told the district health authorities that any district health authority paying an additional £7,500 will be guaranteed not to wait more than 12 months for surgery to be performed on children sent to that hospital? Is not that a clear indication that the Government have completely abandoned the national health service principle of treatment when it is needed and also any pretence of providing other than a two-tier service that will deprive children of surgery at the time when they need it?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is being very cheap and wholly inaccurate. There is no question of a two-tier health service. The hon. Gentleman may find what was said recently by a doctor on "Newsnight" interesting. He said:
I don't accept that there'll be any priority given—
[Interruption.] I know that right hon. and hon. Members do not like listening to alternative views, but it would do them good to do so occasionally. The doctor said:
I don't accept that there'll be any priority given in where the patients are treated at all. My enthusiasm for GP fund-holding is based on——
[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen. The doctor said:
My enthusiasm … is based on the belief that because I know my patients and because I know the resources in the health service and because I care about the patients, I'm in the best position to use the resources in a wise and helpful way
That is the view of people treating patients, and it is better than the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Burt: Bearing in mind the adverse criticism directed so often in the past against English football supporters, does my right hon. Friend share my pleasure not only in Manchester United's excellent result last night against Barcelona but in the behaviour of its supporters? Does he agree with me that, good though the quality of the play was, it is likely to be bettered on Sunday in the third division play-off by Bury football club against Bolton Wanderers?

The Prime Minister: I think that I should be in very considerable danger if I answered the last part of that question. With regard to the first part, however, I am glad to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Manchester United, and not only on the performance of its team ——

Mr. Kinnock: "Up the Reds!"

The Prime Minister: Well, on some occasions, maybe. I congratulate Manchester United not only on the performance of its team but on the behaviour of its supporters, which gave an excellent example in Europe that I look forward to seeing followed by British teams throughout Europe when they lift, I hope, a number of trophies next year.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, please?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 MAY—Debate on "Next Steps" in the civil service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion to take note of EC Document No. 4936/91 relating to the European energy charter. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 21 MAY—Until about seven o'clock consideration of Lords amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, followed by:
Motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order.
WEDNESDAY 22 MAY—Remaining stages of the New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords].
Motion on Members' resettlement grant.
THURSDAY 23 MAY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet to consider European Community documents as follows:
Wednesday 22 May at 10.30 am
Committee A—Document Nos. 8149/88, 9204/89, 5807/90 and 4684/91 relating to natural habitats; and
Committee B—Document No. 10146/90 relating to labelling of tobacco products.

[Monday 20 May:

Floor of the House
Relevant European Community document



4936/91
European Energy Charter

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 29-xvi (1990–91)

Wednesday 22 May:

European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community documents


(a) 8149/88
Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats


(b) 9204/89
Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats


(c) 5807/90
Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats


(d) 4684/91
Protection of Wildlife Nature Habitats


(e) 6553/90
Import Ban on Furs


(f) 5618/91
Import Ban on Furs


(g) 6719/90
Nature Conservation(ACNAT)+ ADD 1



Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 43-xxxix ( 1987–88)
(b) HC 11-iii (1989–90)
(c) HC 11-xxiv (1989–90)
(d) HC 29-xvi (1990–91) and HC 29-xx (1990–91)
(e) IIC 15-xxx (1988–89)
(f) HC 29-xx (1990–91)
(g) HC 11-xxxii (1989–90)

European Standing Committee 
Relevant European Community document 


10146/90
Labelling of Tobacco Products


Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee


HC 29-xi (1990–91) and HC 29–xx (1990–91)]

Dr. Cunningham: Can the Leader of the House confirm what the press has apparently already been told—that the much-delayed White Paper on education and training will be published on Monday next week? If the right hon. Gentleman can confirm that, as I expect that he should be able to do, will he assure us that there will be an oral statement in the Chamber on the publication of this important White Paper? It can hardly be argued that next week is a particularly heavy week for business. Indeed, I was tempted to say when I put the question: "Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, if there is any?" 
May we have an assurance that the appropriate Ministers will come to the House of Commons to announce their proposals and policies and will not announce them in a press conference outside Parliament? 
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House were dismayed by today's unemployment figures. I share the view that Tory Members are concerned—they certainly should be as concerned as we are—about the awful, record rise in unemployment last month, the worst figures for April since the war.
That was coupled with two surveys, one from the engineering union pointing out that about 100,000 jobs had been lost in manufacturing industry, and one from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations showing that about 33,000 training places for people with disabilities had been lost because of Government cuts.
May we have an early debate on the Government's employment policies? It must be in the interests of the reputation of the House of Commons that we should have such a debate, and one would have thought that the Government would want an opportunity to give an explanation of what has happened in that context. I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House will arrange for an early debate on employment policy and the disastrous consequences of the Government's economic policy failures in respect of jobs.
It is clear that the Government do not have much business for the House to conduct. In those circumstances, why do they continue to refuse our offer to co-operate now on legislation to abolish the poll tax? Why must we wait for the abolition of that detested tax when there is all the parliamentary time in the world to introduce a Bill right now? Why are the Government declining our offer?

Mr. MacGregor: I will answer first the first and last points made by the hon. Gentleman. On the first, the hon. Gentleman tries to pretend every week that there is not a great deal of Government business. The House will have noted that we have been very busy this week, and I suspect that we shall be very busy today dealing with amendments to the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]. Is he suggesting that we have no business to conduct today? If so, and if, as he said, we have little business to conduct, does he agree that we shall get through today's business extremely quickly and that the House will rise shortly?

Dr. Cunningham: Answer the question.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is obviously getting embarrassed by this line of response. He says each week that we do not have much to do, when it is obvious that the House has a great deal of legislation to take through, and that will be clear today as it will be next week. So he cannot go on peddling that line, which is far from reality. In fact, the House has been dealing with 35 Bills, with quite a number still to come, leaving aside the Finance Bill. That is more than in the past two Sessions. The House still has a great deal of business to do.
The hon. Gentleman employs the trick of asking for a debate on one thing or another and then, when I grant it —as I did with the public expenditure debate this week, which he knew I was keen to have—he claims that it is a light week. He cannot have it all ways. The hon. Gentleman talks total nonsense.
As for next week, the hon. Gentleman will know that on Tuesday we shall be dealing with two major items, one of which involves 63 amendments from the House of Lords—the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, and the remaining stages of the New Roads and Street Works Bill. That is a major undertaking. He cannot claim that the House is facing a light load when the position is entirely the opposite. There is a great deal of work to be done.
That is partly the answer to the point the hon. Gentleman made about unemployment. A number of the debates that we have had—on the Finance Bill, public expenditure plans and so on—all enabled employment issues to be raised, as they were raised in the debate yesterday, when it was clear that the Opposition proposals would greatly add to unemployment, rather than the reverse.
I noted that, when the hon. Gentleman talked about Government cuts in relation to employment measures, he added yet again to the range of issues where the Labour party is proposing to spend a great deal more money and is not prepared to face up to the need for higher taxation that would be involved under its policies.
I can confirm that there will be a White Paper on education and training, although I cannot at this stage confirm exactly when. But I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request—that there should be an oral statement in the House—and I hope to agree to that.

Mr. Speaker: The House has just heard what the Leader of the House said. Thirty-four groups of amendments have been tabled to the Bill under consideration this afternoon. Will hon. Members therefore ask questions about next week's business and not make general points?

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for an early statement on the adequacy of safety precautions for the transport of toxic or flammable goods by rail? Is he aware that, in the early hours of this morning, at Bradford-on-Tone near Wellington in my constituency, there was a derailment followed by an immense fire in which, thankfully, no one appears to have been injured? However, great concern and alarm has been caused in the surrounding community. We must thank providence that the accident did not happen as the train passed through a built-up area. May we have an urgent inquiry into the causes of the accident, and can the results be brought before the House?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand entirely my hon. Friend's point and agree that it was fortunate that no injuries were reported. As he knows, as a result of the fire, the line is likely to be closed for about two days. It is too early for the cause to be established, but I confirm that British Rail will be holding an internal inquiry. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is in close touch with British Rail. I have noted my hon. Friend's request that the results of the inquiry should come before the House once the inquiry has been completed.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on unemployment which will allow us to examine not only the Government's abysmal record but the unemployment consequences of Labour's national minimum wage policy? Can the right hon. Gentleman also make time for repealing the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, given the welcome statement by the Prime Minister that there will be a moratorium on mining in the Antarctic? 
The Leader of the House has not stated the business for the first week after the recess. Does he know something that we do not?

Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if he had been present on the numerous occasions when that question has been raised—I am sure that he was here—he would know that much attention has been focused on unemployment issues, especially on the point that he raised—the serious consequences for higher unemployment of the Labour party's proposal for a minimum wage.
As for a Bill to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act, we still have a great deal of legislation to take through the House this Session and I do not contemplate adding such a Bill to the already heavy load.
The significance of my not making a statement on business for the first week after the recess is that I am embarrassed by the choice of business still to be conducted in the House. There is no lack of choice but rather too much, and I hope to be able to make that choice soon. It is difficult to do so today, but I intend to make a statement on that subject next week.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although it is important to have a debate on the civil service, an issue that concerns not only the House but the whole country is the world environment? It is time that we had a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on tropical rain forests and other such matters, all of which are vital to us and future generations. The report seems to have been shelved for so long that there are inches of dust on it.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that that issue is important. I have said in past business statements that I hope at some stage to find time to discuss it. It is a question not simply of the Select Committee report but of the Government's response to it. I hope that we can debate those matters, because they are important. I know that my hon. Friend did not wish to underestimate the importance of the debate that we shall have for half a day on Monday. He will have noticed that we shall deal with opposed private business at 7 o'clock.
The next steps reforms in the civil service are among the greatest undertaken in the civil service for a long time. They will achieve much greater effectiveness and value for money, which is what the Government's policies are


about, and are already making considerable progress. The document "Making the most of Next Steps" is being published this afternoon and the debate is therefore relevant.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the light of an event this week, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week that there will not be a summer general election?

Mr. MacGregor: That is not a matter for a business statement at this stage, and I certainly do not intend to make such an announcement.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As the NATO summit has been postponed from June until the autumn because the allies have been unable to agree on a European strategy, will my right hon. Friend make time for a wide-ranging debate on defence and security, especially as it affects Europe?

Mr. MacGregor: We certainly must find time for our usual defence debates. I hope to find time during the summer. We have already had one such debate.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Leader of the House any information about whether there might be a statement early next week about the "World in Action" programme on the Larry Goodman agricultural empire, particularly as it affects the economy of Northern Ireland, bank loans and the employment prospects of many people?

Mr. MacGregor: I have no such information.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: May I urge my right hon. Friend to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for a debate on employment? Given the recent decision by the Sabanci group in Turkey to create several hundred jobs in textile manufacturing in my constituency, we would welcome the opportunity to highlight this Government's policies, which have made Britain the foremost place in Europe for inward investment by those seeking to invest in the heart of the world's manufacturing zone. Such a debate would also give us a wonderful opportunity to contrast those policies with the Opposition's policies, particularly those on minimum wages, which would wipe out millions of jobs in this country.

Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we want to seek every opportunity to contrast the Government's employment policies with those of the Labour party. We have done so frequently recently, and with increasing effect.

Dr. Cunningham: Let us have a debate.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman says, "Let us have a debate", but we debated the subject yesterday. Perhaps he was not here to hear the issues being debated, but I was, and effective arguments were deployed by Conservative Members. It was clear which party had the best policies.
I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said on inward investment, and the specific example that he gave. I hope that he will find opportunities to make that point again.

Mr. Ron Brown: I know that not many of us enjoy vindaloo curry, but may we have the subject of press abuse on the menu next week because it is important to all of us?

Mr. MacGregor: No, Sir.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on dogs, and particularly on the increase in the vicious practice of dog fights? May we include in that debate discussions on penalties for the promotion of dog fights, bearing in mind the fact that the Protection of Animals (Penalties) Act 1987 that I introduced a few years ago, which doubled the penalty for such behaviour, is proving inadequate?

Mr. MacGregor: I know of the concern among hon. Members about recent attacks by dogs. The subject has been raised on a number of occasions. I fully understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, a number of possible options for toughening the law on dogs were set out in the Government's consultation paper on the control of dogs. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering those options and will bring forward his proposals in the summer. From April 1992, the Government intend to implement the package of dog control measures contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Lord President seek to find time to debate the future of ICI? Does he agree that it is the wickedest face of capitalism, as well as the unacceptable face of capitalism, for Lord Hanson to buy £250 million-worth of shares in the company and see the price rise again today by 65p so that he can without any effort make a tidy profit on the backs of those on Teesside who work for, are committed to and respect ICI? Are we not seeing the worst aspect of Tory Government in operation across the floor of the stock exchange?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, if Hanson does acquire a large enough stake in ICI or makes a takeover bid for that company, it will fall to be considered by the European Commission, under the European Community merger regulations, or by the United Kingdom competition authorities. Obviously, those are hypothetical matters and I am basing my remarks on that hypothesis. The acquisition by Hanson of what I understand to be a 2·82 per cent. shareholding in ICI does not constitute a qualifying merger under the merger control provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the City code on takeovers and mergers lays down the circumstances in which an announcement about a takeover bid is required. That would be a matter for the takeover panel to supervise.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to have employment, not unemployment, figures published? Today the fact has been published that there are more people at work in Scotland than there have ever been, and half a million more than under a Socialist Government. Will he also arrange a debate, next week if possible but soon thereafter if not, to trumpet abroad the fact that under their economic policy the Government have in 10 short years achieved a triumph in the transformation of the life and culture of Scotland? They have housed the Burrell


collection, renewed the national gallery of Scotland, the national library and the new museum of modern art., given funds for the new museum of Scotland and done a thousand other things.

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the transformation in Scotland. It has been a good example of the success of the Government's policies in the past 12 years. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend could name a thousand other things, and I could add many to those that he mentioned.
My hon. and learned Friend was also right about employment. It is important to keep stressing the fact that the work force in employment has increased by more than 3·1 million since March 1983 and that there are almost 27 million jobs in the United Kingdom. The facts of employment show that there were considerable advances during the 1980s.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the rules on ministerial conduct require that on a visit a Minister must ensure separation between his political activities and those that he undertakes in his ministerial role? In that context, will the Secretary of State for Wales make a statement next week to explain why, on a recent series of official engagements, he has been using the official sections of his visits to advance the candidacy of a local prospective parliamentary candidate?

Mr. MacGregor: I know nothing about the right hon. Gentleman's allegations, so I do not wish to say any thing about them. However, I do not believe that that is the type of issue on which a statement is required next week.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Without impugning anyone's motives—in the way that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) did—does my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that there might be a need for an early debate on or statement about the developing situation at ICI? In view of the strategic and security implications of some parts of ICI's research and development programme, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a public interest dimension as well as a share price dimension to the future of that great British company which must be kept under tight parliamentary scrutiny?

Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to have a statement or a debate next week. However, if there are issues that hon. Members wish to raise, there are a number of ways in which they can raise them.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: May we have a debate on the increased price of water? Is the Minister aware that Yorkshire Water has increased its prices by 15 per cent. and that that hurts people on fixed incomes who receive no rebates? More important, is he aware that small businesses are now being forced to install meters and that the private company can force entry if the businesses object? Such a practice is adding to the difficulties facing many small businesses in my constituency.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the hon. Lady's last point is relevant to the burden on small businesses. It is widely recognised that for businesses, and perhaps increasingly for households, water metering is a fair way to make charges.
On the hon. Lady's first point, she knows that the water companies are undertaking massive capital investment to improve water quality and to deal with environmental matters, and that has to be paid for. The Opposition call for improvement in environmental issues and in water quality, but often they are not prepared to face the consequence of who pays for it. That is typical of their approach.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 812? 
[That this House notes with concern the continuing high level in the United Kingdom of deaths related to the abuse of solvent and volatile substances; further notes that draft figures for 1990 show that at least 120 people died from solvent abuse in that year, a rise of 6 per cent. over the 1989 level of 113 deaths; in this light, particularly welcomes the work of Resolv (The Society for the Prevention of Solvent and Volatile Substance Abuse) in helping to combat this problem; and congratulates those honourable Members who have established a new all-party parliamentary group to examine the issue.]
It draws attention to the continuing high level of deaths related to solvent abuse. Figures for 1990 show that at least 120 people died. Will my right hon. Friend also join me in congratulating Resolv on its work? Will he arrange for an early debate on that important subject?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, there are various ways in which hon. Members can raise issues in the House. In view of the heavy pressure on Government time, I cannot promise a debate on the issue. I had noticed the early-day motion. The Government are well aware of the problem of volatile substance misuse and are naturally concerned by the number of deaths related to such misuse. Our policy is focused on supporting initiatives that concentrate on the information and education not only of young people at risk, but of adults, including parents, professional workers and retailers who may become involved. We have taken a number of steps in that area.
My hon. Friend mentioned Resolv. We recognise the important part that it plays, and I point out to my hon. Friend that it receives Government support. The Government are monitoring trends in the nature of solvent misuse to see whether further effective action can be taken.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for an early debate on the Government's policies towards the middle east, so that a clear statement can be made on the Government's attitude towards the peace conference proposed by the United States, on—I hope—the inclusion of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in that conference, and on whether the Government are prepared to recognise the right of self-determination of Kurdish people as the only basis for a long-term peace settlement in the region? Too many lives have already been lost as a result of political instability in the region. Surely we now need a debate on a peaceful solution to all the problems and conflicts in that region.

Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, I am prepared to see whether time can be given, either through statements or a debate at an appropriate time, to deal with those important matters. However, it cannot be next week

Sir Dudley Smith: Last week, my right hon. Friend said that there would shortly


be a debate on the subject of charge capping. As he probably knows, the announcements are being made this afternoon. My right hon. Friend said nothing in his statement about a possible debate. When are we likely to have one?

Mr. MacGregor: There was reference to such a debate in the statement, but it may not have been immediately obvious. The motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order on Tuesday next week is precisely that.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House answer a question the answer to which will be of interest to the public. Will he confirm——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the question about business next week?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes. Will the Leader of the House make provision for a statement setting out the role of Members of Parliament? Will he confirm that there are at least 100 Members of Parliament, who are all Conservative Members and who are all on the payroll vote because they are Ministers, who cannot ask written or oral questions? They do not have that right. Will the right hon. Gentleman simply confirm from the Dispatch Box that that is the case?

Mr. MacGregor: There has been no change in the position on Ministers in relation to questions. I do not think a statement is required next week.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will doubtless have had his attention drawn to the grave warning issued yesterday by the director general of the general agreement on tariffs and trade that, if the European Community and the United States do not reach agreement early, the collapse of trade, employment and growth could make the great depression look like a period to which we would wish to return. If that is so, should not we debate the matter as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: I have answered questions on the subject on a number of occasions. I confirm that I believe that the GATT talks are extremely important. The British Government regretted that the talks did not reach a conclusion in the timetable for which people hoped and we are using every endeavour to try to achieve a successful outcome of the GATT talks. There will no doubt be times when it will be appropriate to have a discussion in the House, but I do not think that it will be next week.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Leader of the House recall that in the past year I have often asked for a debate on the present condition of the prison service? Since I last asked for a debate, there have been, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, further suicides in prison. Prisons are overcrowded and more than 800 persons are presently remanded in police station cells rather than in prisons. There have been rulings against us in the European Court of Justice and various other matters have been raised in connection with prison discipline and medical services. It is a disgrace. May we have a debate as soon as possible on the whole future of the prison service?

Mr. MacGregor: I note the hon. Gentleman's request and I am grateful for his reference to "as soon as possible". Contrary to the view that the hon. Gentleman seems to take, my difficulty is that an immense amount of business is being undertaken and there are many requests for parliamentary time. I will bear it in mind.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 667, which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members.
[That this House notes with grave concern the findings of a survey by the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers which revealed that in the 136 councils that replied 486 criminal records had actually been discovered in a 18 month period, none of which had initially been declared during the interviews which took place under the provisions of the Local Government ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which required a district council not to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence; calls upon the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the Association of Chief Police Officers to co-operate in the release of past criminal records of all new applicants to the chairmen of district licensing committees in a confidential file, so as to prevent any recurrence of what occurred in Southampton where a licence was given to a convicted rapist; and calls for a similar system to be introduced as that practised in London where the Metropolitan Police have access to criminal records when determining applicants for Hackney carriage driver's licences to be expanded to all district councils in the United Kingdom.]
The matter is worrying many local authorities and it requires legislation and, possibly, a debate next week. Surely we can persuade the police to release criminal histories of would-be applicants for taxi drivers' licences. The situation in many local authorities is a scandal and the House is becoming extremely worried about it.

Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friend has raised that point before during business questions. Let me bring my hon. Friend up to date. The Home Office has recently discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers whether the police could take on that task. The question will be looked at again in the light of the forthcoming report of the Home Office on criminal records.

Mr. David Trimble: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to new clause 3 of the Planning and Compensation Bill which is to be debated this afternoon. That clause provides for the enactment of equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland by an Order in Council subject to negative resolution which, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, is never debated at any time in the House. Is it not inappropriate to add such a clause at virtually the last stage of the Bill, thus depriving Northern Ireland Members of the opportunity of debating its application to Northern Ireland at a later stage? Can the Leader of the House provide a better way of handling that matter and enable us to debate it at another time?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise that matter this afternoon during the debate on new clause 3.

Mr. Trimble: Not when I am attending the Northern Ireland Committee.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: May we please have a debate on the management of public sector pension funds in the light of the report published this week on the management of Derbyshire county council's pension fund by the district auditor, who says that the council has claimed a profit on shares which turned out to be worthless and that councillors voted £2 million of public money to be put into shares in a private company of which they were secretly directors, most of which has gone missing? Does he agree with the district auditor and the council's independent financial adviser that those actions amount to chicanery—that is the word that was used? What does my right hon. Friend feel that we should now do to bring those people to book?

Mr. MacGregor: I have not had the benefit of seeing the report, but I know there is much local concern about the issue. My hon. Friend may wish to find other opportunities to have it discussed in the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Before a general election is called, should we not have a debate about the state of the franchise, since it appears from the number of people aged over 18 in the population that 750,000 people are missing from the electoral register? We should discuss how that can be corrected before a general election.

Mr. MacGregor: I notice that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the election. This is not a matter for which I can find Government time next week.

Mr. Michael Latham: Why are we wasting yet more time next week on the obsolete Victorian farce of private legislation? Is it not high time that it was all scrapped? At the same time, will my hon. Friend find time for my Established Church Bill, which would scrap Church Measures as well?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not know about finding time for my hon. Friend's Bill next week, but I agree that there is a need to reform the way in which the House handles private Bills. As he will know, we have already proposed changes to the procedures which will come into operation next Session and which will make some difference. But more important than that is the legislation which will follow from the Department of Transport consultation document on various aspects of private Bill procedure for which we hope to find early legislative time. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will shortly be giving the Government's response to that consultation document.

Mr. Max Madden: May we have an early debate on foreign affairs, which would allow the House to review the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government, and discussion of the continuing and serious human rights violations in the Punjab and Kashmir? The House could also consider the case of Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal, whose circumstances are set out in early-day motion 828.
[That this House expresses concern that Karamjit Singh Chahal, a British citizen settled in the United Kingdom since 1974, has been detained in Bedford Prison since August 1990; notes Mr. Chahal is detained subject to a notice of the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 for reasons of national security and other reasons of a political

nature; calls for Mr. Chahal to be released immediately pending his being allowed to appeal, with legal representation, against refusal by the Home Secretary to grant political asylum in the United Kingdom; expresses concern that if Mr. Chahal is deported to India he is likely, in the view of Amnesty International, to be subjected to torture, disappearance or extrajudicial execution; recalls Mr. Chahal, when visiting India in 1984, was arrested and detained at Mehta police station for nine days, during which he was beaten and otherwise ill-treated and that he was transferred to a police station in Amritsar and held for another 10 or 11 days, during which he was subjected to torture, including severe beatings and electric shock treatments; and regrets that a number of Mr. Chahal's relatives have been tortured or ill-treated while held in police custody, that two relatives have recently been killed by security forces, allegedly in fake encounters and that another relative, Kulwant Singh Nagoke, died in police custody.]
If Mr. Chahal has committed offences relating to national security, why is he not being brought to trial in a British court rather than be facing removal to India without the right of appeal or of legal representation—removal to a place where he was tortured in 1984? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that all those matters can be raised by the many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who are deeply concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in India?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that a number of hon. Members want a foreign affairs debate to be arranged. However, it is not possible to find time for one at present.
As for early-day motion 828 and the case of Mr. Chahal, it is not the practice—as the hon. Member knows —to give detailed reasons for deportation decisions taken on national security grounds. Mr. Chahal has access to legal advice, and he has intimated his wish to make representations to the three advisers. Arrangements are being made for them to consider his case, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will review it fully in the light of the advisers' recommendations.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an urgent debate on the position of teachers in grant-maintained schools? Is he aware that there are strong voices in the Labour movement arguing that those teaching in grant-maintained schools should be sacked, discriminated against or denied employment in maintained schools simply because they work in the grant-maintained sector? Is that not a particularly nasty, vicious, and spineless example of modern-day Labour party thinking, and should it not be resisted by the House at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that I am aware of some of the statements made by some Labour education spokesmen on those matters.

Mr. Derek Foster: Not from this Front Bench.

Mr. MacGregor: I said "some Labour spokesmen" on education matters. I chose my words with great care. As far as I am aware, they were not said from the Labour Front Bench. However, I know that such action has been suggested, and therefore that there is a debate in the Labour party on that issue. I know also that those threats have sometimes been made. I entirely agree with my hon.
Friend, and I hope that those threats will not be tolerated and will be rejected by the teachers—not least those in grant-maintained schools who are active Labour supporters and who see for themselves their great merits.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the debate that is to take place in European Standing Committee B next Wednesday morning on the labelling of tobacco is distinct from the recent proposal relating to the advertising of tobacco goods? Does he agree that it is wholly undesirable for EEC Commissioners to hold press conferences about proposals when the documents relating to them are not in the possession of the Government, the House, or the British public? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the issues raised by the set of documents on tobacco relate not only to the merits of the matter and to the law, on which very strong views are held in the House, but to who makes the law, where it is made, and under what powers it is determined under the treaties? Both aspects are relevant to the documents.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that both aspects are relevant, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue so that I can clear up any confusion that might arise in the minds of the public. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the two matters are distinct. Next week, Standing Committee B will debate labelling and a ban on oral snuff products. It represents an amendment to an existing directive. The proposed new directive relates to the advertising of tobacco products. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well—because this is on the recommendation of his Select Committee on European Legislation—the labelling directive needs to be debated soon, because a decision by the Council on a common position may be imminent. The advertising issue is quite separate, as is its timing.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it will be a good many months before the European Council is asked to make a decision, so it is not urgent, and there will be time to consider the issues in a measured and sensible way. That will include, when the documents are available, scrutiny by the Select Committee of the new draft directive and its decision on what the House should do about it.

Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will know that local authorities have been given until 14 June to submit evidence to the Department of the Environment about the future structure of local government. Bearing in mind the pressure of time, will he consider arranging a debate soon after the recess so that the matter can be dealt with in the House before local authorities have managed to give their evidence?

Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but I fear that it is extremely unlikely that we shall have time for such a debate before 14 June. That date, of course, marks only the end of the consultation process; there will be time for the House to consider the issues after that.

Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on the allocation of the new accommodation that will become available in the offices in Upper Parliament street? While we are at it, perhaps we could decide in the same debate how we can make our facilities more attractive to ex-Prime Ministers, so that the

right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) can come and make a speech here. I believe that she has been here only three times since last November. We could save her all the time and effort involved in travelling around the world and making speeches in the United States and South Africa—but perhaps she does not feel comfortable sitting among her so-called friends on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that we can have a debate about accommodation next week. Perhaps worry about his own accommodation is at the back of the hon. Gentleman's question; if so, he knows that there are those to whom he can make application.

Mr. John Browne: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 776? 
[That this House, conscious of the fact that real care for the men and women of our armed forces has enabled our country to rely, even to the point of ultimate sacrifice, upon their loyalty, steadfastness and efficiency in times of grave national threat, is astounded to note that, when digging a trench during an official Army exercise in Canada in July 1989, three men of the Grenadier Guards. (Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey) detonated a six year old unexploded shell which not only rendered them limbless but caused them such grievous wounds that Mr. Ray and Mr. Povey are still, after almost two years, in receipt of hospital treatment; notes that the Ministry of Defence find themselves unable, on the grounds of unattributable negligence, to pay compensation; and calls upon the Prime Minister to review this case personally and to ensure that, regardless of the possible legal responsibility of some unknown nation who failed to 'clear' the shell some six years previously, Her Majesty's Government is seen to follow truly a policy that shows an appreciation of human understanding, human dignity and the value of a human life on earth by awarding generous compensation and a return of the accumulated legal costs to these youthful British Grenadiers.]
The motion, which has been signed by more than 160 right hon. and hon. Members on a cross-Bench basis, refers to a tragic Army training accident in Canada, in which three men of the Grenadier Guards—Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey—had their legs blown off. Their injuries were so grievous that now, after two years, only one of them is fit enough to be invalided out of the Army; and he was invalided out with legal benefits that can at best be described only as derisory. That was the fault not of the Army, but of a gap in the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. May we please have a debate on the Act so that we can ensure that that gap is filled? 
In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend urge the Prime Minister to look at the matter personally and urgently to ensure that generous ex gratia compensation is given to those men? If that creates a precedent, so be it: surely we are here to create a good precedent.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that every hon. Member fully sympathises with those three service men, and was very concerned to hear what happened to them. I assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Government are dealing fully and sympathetically with the matter, and would do the same for any other service man injured as a result of serving in the armed forces.
As my hon. Friend knows, in this unfortunate case the Ministry of Defence was not legally liable for the injuries that were sustained. None of the three service men is in


receipt of a service invaliding pension from the Ministry. I understand, however, that yesterday the Department of Social Security approved the award of a war pension to one of them. If they are discharged, the other two will be entitled to apply for such award. Once such awards are approved, the Ministry of Defence converts the service invaliding pensions already being paid to service men to tax-free service attributable pensions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Leader of the House will be aware that between 1964 and 1966, and between 1974 and 1979, both the major parties in the House required hon. Members to be brought into the precincts of Westminster when they were ill—sometimes seriously ill. On occasion they were brought from hospital so that they could be nodded through and majorities could be maintained or, in some instances, challenged.
Given that, at the next general election, the electorate may not confer an absolute majority on one party, would it not be a good idea to embark on urgent talks so that we can find a far more civilised way of enabling hon. Members to vote when they are critically ill?

Mr. MacGregor: That is not a matter for the business of the House next week. The hon. Gentleman raises a hypothetical question. I expect that the Conservative party will be on this side of the House for some time with a big enough majority.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My right hon. Friend will recall that, on the relief of Mafeking, the House sent a message of congratulation to its people. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate so that a similar message can be sent to the people of Brent? The people in that beleaguered borough were relieved last night from the yoke of a Labour council when two Labour members defected to an independent party which supports the Conservative party. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate so that the Liberal party can explain to the country why, when even Labour elected members found the policies of their party unpalatable, the Liberals supported them to the end?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. I am sure that he will continue to make it, and that it will be made clear to the people of Brent.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Leader of the House give the most serious consideration to an early debate, even just a three-hour debate, on the current circumstances of the United Kingdom shipbuilding and marine engineering industry? That industry has become the forgotten industry of the United Kingdom. We have not had a debate on it for some considerable time. We should be allowed to examine the implementation of the seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund and other matters such as the threat by Kvaerner Kincaid to cease building marine engines in my constituency. Many people in that industry are deeply worried about the parlous future that they face. Surely we are entitled to ask for an early debate on their future.

Mr. MacGregor: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not in any way underestimate the importance of the issue that he raises. However, the business for the next few weeks makes it extremely unlikely that I shall be able to find time for a debate in Government time. It is, of

course, always open to others to find time that is available to them to raise such matters. But I do not underestimate the importance of the industry. I fully understand the great importance of the issues and of the industry.

Mr. John Bowis: As we move into the warmer and open-window season when neighbourhood noise becomes even more of an urban menace, may we have a debate and perhaps a statement so that we can examine the issue and how our fellow citizens can protect themselves from the thoughtless actions of their neighbours? Perhaps the Government could also announce a public information and education campaign to persuade people to be more reasonable.

Mr. MacGregor: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was about to refer to the sticky July month here in the House. He will have to find other opportunities to raise in the near future the matter to which he referred. As I have had to say to others, we have a great deal of business to do in Government time.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Leader of the House reverse the decision that he has already made about the need for a debate or a statement about the proposed takeover of ICI by the despicable Lord Hanson, whose record has been one of asset stripping——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that he must not refer in those terms to a member of the other place. Will he please withdraw the word "despicable"?

Mr. Skinner: The despicable Hanson Corporation—will that do? [Interruption.] I thought it might. The Hanson record has been one of asset stripping. It is no use the Leader of the House talking about the takeover panel, because it missed the Guinness scandal, which went straight under its nose. There are 52,000 jobs at stake. Let the workers have a ballot and not allow Hanson to take the company over with the Government helping their friends.

Mr. MacGregor: I did not make any decision. I simply made a clear statement of the position on any potential takeover or merger.

Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on damage to the environment caused by some groups of itinerants? Will a Government measure, designed to give stronger powers to keep itinerants off private land, be one of those introduced to keep us busy over the coming months?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's particular interest in this matter. He will be aware of the legislative provisions that are available to deal with it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on wages and other incomes? In such a debate we could discuss the admirable proposals for a minimum wage. That would help people on poverty wages who have to clock on and clock off. Tory MPs who condemn the proposal would also have an opportunity to explain their position. How many of them, earning £30,000 a year here, are doubling, trebling or quadrupling their incomes by moonlighting as parliamentary advisers, company directors, and so on? We ought to be given an opportunity to expose the rank hypocrisy of those people who attack the poorest of the poor while they use this place to line their pockets.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows about having two jobs, for he was a Member of the European Parliament as well as of this House.

Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]

Mr. MacGregor: On the question of a national minimum wage—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises. The hon. Gentleman must not, from a sedentary position, carry on a conversation. He should listen to what the Leader of the House has to say.

Mr. MacGregor: We shall certainly be very happy to continue to debate the Opposition's proposals for a national minimum wage. I have made that clear several times. The matter has already been debated, and I hope that there will be further debates. Our estimates of the number of jobs lost simply have not been refuted by the Opposition, nor is that possible.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Government Members would like to have an early debate on the performance of water companies since privatisation? A debate would give the House an opportunity not only to set out the great success of privatisation but to question the shortness of the period over which some capital investment is being written off. Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that Eastbourne Water—previously a statutory company—has increased its charges by 100 per cent. over the past three years? That is something that my late constituent and parliamentary neighbour, Ian Gow, challenged last year, as did I. The situation has arisen largely because the director general has allowed investment to be written off over a very short period.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate on this matter, or on water companies generally, in the near future. As I have said, we have a very busy programme.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am grateful for having been called, Mr. Speaker.
I should like the Leader of the House to do a very simple job next week. He has been good at some things —and he knows what I mean. Will he drag a Treasury Minister to the Dispatch Box to tell the House why the Treasury is interfering with the allocation of finance from Europe, through Commissioner Millan, for areas, such as my constituency, where the Government have closed down mines? The money to which I refer is made available for the specific purpose of helping such communities to overcome their problems by creating jobs where the Government have created unemployment.

Mr. MacGregor: In a moment, I shall say something nice to the hon. Gentleman. In answer to his main charge, I have to point out that there has been a considerable improvement in the employment situation over not many years. The point about a Treasury Minister coming to the Dispatch Box is one that he himself must pursue. I cannot promise Government time for a debate next week.
With regard to the simple job to which the hon. Gentleman referred—I think that I know what he has in mind—I can promise that I hope to have one of the issues settled in the House next week. I know that it is of importance to him. Indeed, provision is made for it in next week's business, and I hope very much to be able myself to see it through the House.

Whitsun Adjournment

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment on Thursday 23 May, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today—perhaps the Leader of the House would listen to what I have to say—I gave the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to explain the position about the tabling of oral and written questions by Ministers, who make up approximately 100 Members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, in a flippant reply, he refused to advise the House and the country about the position. Perhaps, in the absence of a proper reply from the Leader of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, might care to explain the position to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member asked for a statement next week on that matter. When the hon. Gentleman mentioned it to me, I thought that he was referring to our exchanges last week on business questions I think that the whole House knows that there are constraints on Ministers, as there are constraints upon me and upon shadow Ministers, tabling questions, but it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House suggested that, during a short overlap period when I was also an MEP, I was at a financial advantage because I received one third extra to my parliamentary salary. I placed on the record repeatedly at the time—the Leader of the House has deliberately forgotten that—the fact that that money was given to the Sheffield Labour movement and benefited it I received no advantage from it.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me either.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

Ordered,
That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. —[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: new Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments relating to Clause 1, Clause 31, Clause 2, Clause 32, Clauses 3 and 4, Clause 33, Clause 5, Clause 34, Clause 6, Clause 35, Clause 7, Clause 36, Clause 8, Clause 37, Clause 9, Clause 38, Clause 10, Clause 39, Clause 11, Clause 40, Clause 12, Clause 45, Clause 13, Clause 41, Clause 14, Clause 44, Clause 15, Clause 42, Clause 16, Clause 43, Clause 17, Clause 46, Clauses 18 to 20, Schedule 1, Clause 47, Schedule 7, Clause 21, Clause 48, Clause 22, Clause 23, Clause 49, Clause 50, Clause 24, Schedule 2, Clause 51, Schedule 8, Clause 25, Schedule 3, Clause 26, Schedule 4, Clause 52, Schedule 9, Clauses 27 to 29, Schedule 5, Clause 53, Schedule 10, Clause 30, Schedule 6, Clause 54, Schedule 11, Clause 55, Clause 69, Clause 56, Clause 66, Clause 57, Clause 67, Clause 58, Clause 68, Clause 59, Schedule 12, Clause 70, Schedule 14, Clause 60, Clause 71, Clause 61, Clause 64, Clause 62, Clause 65, Clause 63, Schedule 13, Clause 72, Schedule 15, Clause 73, Schedule 16, Clauses 74 to 76 and Schedule 17. —[Sir George Young.]

New clause 1

OLD MINING PERMISSIONS

'. —(1) In this section and Schedule (Registration of old mining permissions) to this Act, "old mining permission" means any planning permission for development—

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or
(b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,
which was deemed to be granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 by virtue of section 77 of that Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 21st July 1943).

(2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered.

(3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 1st May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out at any time after the coming into force of this section unless—

…(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above, and
(b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.

(4) An old mining permission shall—

(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and,
(b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.

(5) An old mining permission shall, if—

(a) such an application is granted, but
(b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,
cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served.

(6) Subject to subsection (3) above, this section—

(a) shall not affect any development carried out under an old mining permission before an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined or, as the case may be, the date on which the permission ceases to have effect, and
(b) shall not affect any order made or having effect as if made under section 102 of or Schedule 9 to the principal Act (discontinuance, etc., orders).

(7) This section and that Schedule, and the principal Act, shall have effect as if the section and Schedule were included in Part III of that Act.'—[Sir George Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clauses Nos. 8 and 15.

Government amendments Nos. 1 and 1(a)
Government amendment No. 104.
Government amendments Nos. 2 to 14.
Government amendment No. 69.
Government amendments Nos. 71 to 77.
Government amendments Nos. 15 to 18. 
Government amendment No. 98.
Government amendment No. 99.
Government amendment No. 101.

Sir George Young: The subject of interim development order permissions for mineral working has been debated several times during the passage of the Bill, and I announced on 1 May my intention to table amendments to deal with the problems of absence of records, inadequate working and restoration conditions, and dormant sites. New clause 1 and amendment No. 1 give effect to those proposals—new clause 8 and amendment No. 104 make similar provision for Scotland.
First, they provide that land-owners or mineral owners with an IDO permission, who wish to apply to the mineral planning authority to have their permissions registered, must do so within six months of commencement of those provisions, or the permission will fall without compensation. Disputes about the validity of permissions will be determined by the Secretary of State. That will get the records straight and ensure that the extent and terms of IDO permissions are known.
Secondly, once it has been determined that there is a valid IDO permission, either by the mineral planning authority or by the Secretary of State on appeal, the holder must—within 12 months of that determination, or such longer period as may have been agreed with the mineral planning authority—submit a scheme of operating and restoration conditions for the MPA's approval or the permission will cease to have effect. That will get active sites up to standard.
In response to concerns expressed that the time period for registration and submission of schemes set out in our consultation paper was too short, we have provided for longer time periods and separated the two processes. There will be six months from commencement instead of four to submit applications for registration—as the time period is not public knowledge, applicants will have a much longer period—and a full year from the date the permission is registered for the submission of schemes. We have built in

extra flexibility by providing that that period can be extended if the MPA agrees. That should provide a reasonable time for the industry to prepare itself and the flexibility to ensure that the system is not overloaded. I hope that that meets the concerns expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
Thirdly, operations cannot recommence on dormant sites—sites where there has been no working to any substantial extent for two years preceding 1 May 1991—until the permission has been obtained as valid and a scheme of operating and restoration conditions has been approved. That is an important proposal. It meets many of the concerns that were expressed about the reactivation of IDO permissions on environmentally attractive sites.
4.30 pm 
There will be no compensation for the cost of complying with conditions imposed, but there is provision for appeal to the Secretary of State against the imposition of unreasonable conditions and for the Secretary of State to call in an application for his own determination. We shall issue full guidance on the preparation of schemes and model conditions, which we shall discuss with representatives of the industry and mineral planning authorities with a view to publishing draft guidance in September.
I know that the industry is concerned that those proposals could lead to the imposition of unreasonable conditions that would diminish asset values. I think that its fears are misplaced. Throughout, I have drawn a distinction between expropriation of the asset and working it in a way that meets modern conditions. When representatives of the British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries came to see me, they stressed that they already worked their sites to such standards. I conclude, therefore, that what we are asking the industry to do is not unreasonable. None the less, I can assure the industry that we shall have in mind the concerns that it has expressed.
For working sites, we shall advise the mineral planning authorities that they should draw a distinction between conditions that deal with the environmental and amenity aspects of working the site, which should not affect the asset value, and conditions that would fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. Conditions that would significantly affect the asset value would be more appropriate for MPA reviews under the provisions introduced by the Minerals Act 1981. We shall want to issue clear guidance and consult the industry on that matter.
The amendments will ensure that in a relatively short period the details of all valid IDO permissions will be known, that the permissions are brought up to acceptable standards and that dormant sites cannot be reactivated without warning or proper conditions. That will bring the IDOs within the embrace of a modern planning system.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I apologise for allowing my hon. Friend to complete dealing with compensation before interrupting him. It is rather novel for a Conservative Government to say that constraints should be placed on private property—whether it is owned by a company is immaterial—without offering any compensation. My hon. Friend will have to justify that to the House in clearer terms.

Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which was expressed by representatives of the industry. The key point is that the industry already claims that it is voluntarily operating its sites to modern working standards. Currently, IDOs are outside the planning system. We are asking the industry only to bring IDO permissions up to modern standards. If it is an environmentally responsible industry, already working to those standards, there is no need to compensate it.
I draw a distinction between conditions that deal with the environmental and amenity aspects of working the site, which would not affect the asset value and where compensation does not arise, and conditions that the mineral planning authority might want to impose, which would affect the economic structure of the operation. It will not be able to use the provisions before the House to impose conditions that fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that should meet the industry's major concern.
As was made clear in response to the consultation exercise on IDOs and in debates in Committee, permissions for mineral working granted in the 1950s and 1960s may have conditions attached that fail to meet today's standards. Opposition Members have tabled an amendment to the proposed schedule on IDOs that seeks to prevent development from recommencing at any mineral site where permission was granted before 1965 and that has been inactive for five years until the environmental effects of the development have been assessed and new conditions agreed with the mineral planning authority. That amendment is identical to an amendment that we debated in Committee. I explained then that it is important to distinguish between IDO permissions, which were originally granted prior to the introduction of a comprehensive planning system in 1948, and permissions granted thereafter.
New clause 1 and amendment No. 1 address the immediate problem of bringing IDO permissions up to scratch, and as I have already said, we have provided that sites that have been inactive for two years—rather than the five years for which the Opposition amendment would provide—cannot be reactivated until a scheme of conditions has been approved by the MPA. Clearly, the preparation and approval of those conditions should have regard to the potential environmental effects of working the site, and we shall make that clear in the guidance that we issue.
As regards permissions granted in the 1950s and 1960s —or, indeed any mineral permissions which are now unsatisfactory—MPAs have existing powers to take action, including powers to prohibit the resumption of mineral working where a site has been inactive for several years. They have a duty to review mineral working sites in their area and to make such orders as they consider appropriate, updating those sites to modern standards. However, there is no time limit on the reviews, and orders can give rise to compensation, and progress has not been so fast as we would have hoped.
We therefore announced in the environment White paper our intention to review the mineral planning authorities' existing powers to take action to see whether any changes are necessary. That review is under way and that is the right place to consider the problems of 1950s and 1960s permissions, whether active or dormant. We shall consult on our proposals next year. I assure the House that we attach high priority to completing the

review and we regard it as essential that any changes arising out of that review can be implemented quickly. We have tabled amendments to ensure that that can happen.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 provide a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order the periods in which MPAs must carry out their duty to review sites and the matters to be covered in such reviews. Amendments Nos. 72 to 75 make similar provision for Scotland.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 14 replace the existing powers on compensation in relation to winning and working, and those originally proposed in the Bill in relation to mineral waste, with a single order-making power to provide for the abatement of compensation, following orders updating permissions for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste. The amount of abatement and the circumstances in which compensation might be abated will be set out in the regulations themselves, which will be subject to consultation and affirmative resolution of both Houses. The existing provisions will be retained until the review has been completed and there has been consultation on any changes.
Amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 15 to 18 make consequential amendments to clause 20 and the repeals schedule, schedule 17. The amendments—which, as I have said, will enable our review to be implemented quickly—together with new clause 1 and amendment No. 1 on IDOs, represent a comprehensive package which shows the Government's commitment to raising environmental standards in the minerals industry. Taken together, they will ensure that there is a rigorous framework in place to enable all old minerals permissions to be brought up to an acceptable standard over the next decade. These are tough proposals, but I believe that they are in the long-term interests of the industry and local communities.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I think that we can agree that the Government are definitely moving in the right direction but, as the Minister will know from our debates in Committee, the Opposition are still convinced that more could be done to deal with this very serious problem.
The Government's proposals will clear up much of the confusion—even mystery—surrounding interim development orders and will enable mineral planning authorities to take steps to ensure that quarrying is carried out to higher standards. What is not, however, admitted, is that there are IDOs in connection with sites where quarrying ought not to take place at all. As a result, organisations such as the National Housing and Town Planning Council, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales have all said that the Government have missed an opportunity to put right the really damaging consequences of IDOs hastily given in the 1940s.
Even with the Government's current review of quarrying in the United Kingdom and even with the best possible interpretation of the outcome of the Government's efforts to deal with this problem, 18 months to two years will pass, during which serious damage will continue to take place on many sites of special scientific interest in the United Kingdom. As a result, the homes of thousands of people will continue to be blighted. Their worst fears about the threat of quarrying on their doorsteps will be confirmed. As IDOs are registered, even more people may be shocked to find out that they live in the middle, or on the edge, of a site where quarrying permission has been granted.
In addition to this blighting of people's homes right across the country, there is the issue of the damage being done to hundreds of valuable wildlife habitats. They are being destroyed now, they will continue to be destroyed, and a process of destruction will begin in new areas while the Government decline to act, perhaps giving some impression and hope that eventually they will deal with the problem in the way that is necessary.
The Government will be familiar with the report "Losing Ground", drawn up by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, which records that 17 sites of special scientific interest are threatened by IDO quarry workings, as well as three national nature reserves and an important wetland. They will know that across Britain, in a large number of counties, sites are threatened every day of the week. In Dyfed, there is the 90-acre Carmel woods site, a unique ancient Welsh woodland designated in 1989 as a site of special scientific interest. It has an IDO on it, and McAlpine is threatening to move on to the site. At Asham in Somerset, a 350-acre SSSI of grade 1 woodland is being destroyed. In Leicestershire, at Budden wood, Redland Aggregates has already destroyed most of the SSSI. I could go on to give a catalogue of valuable wildlife and nature habitats that are being destroyed while the Government consult and wonder what action they might take.
In addition to this destruction, there is also the matter of compensation, which is causing a great deal of vexation. Cheshire county council is in a difficult position over a wetland SSSI at Rixley clay pit. The council refused to give permission and faces a claim for £1·5 million compensation.
It is plain that mineral planning authorities, although they wish to preserve these special sites, simply cannot afford to pay the compensation demanded under existing legislation. It is no wonder that groups such as "Stop Quarrying Under Interim Development Orders", the Backup moors action group—in the constituency of one of the Minister's ministerial colleagues—the Asham and East Mendip action group and the Somerset branch of the CPRE are concerned. Across the country people are making representations to the Government emphasising the need for changes.
4.45 pm 
The Minister seemed to imply in his opening statement that we were perhaps precipitate in seeking an amendment to the Government's new clause that would allow proceedings to take place that would stop interim development orders going ahead without compensation. Although it is true that in some ways this is a new aspect of English law, in other ways it is not. If we look, for example, at improved standards of pollution control, we see that manufacturing companies often have to change their technology completely and invest huge amounts of money, or sometimes even close down altogether, because they cannot meet modern standards. They do not get any compensation when that happens. We are saying that, in certain specific circumstances, there is a case for arguing that, where a site does not meet modern environmental assessment standards, if the permission has not been taken up, it should be revoked; if it is an existing permission, an opportunity should be given to find out whether it can be worked properly: but there should be a time to stop.
Although this may be at least partially new in Britain, it is not a new concept in the European Community. This procedure has already taken place in Germany. I should like to read to the Minister a letter of 2 April this year from the German Economics Minister on the federal mining law, which was addressed to a Mr. Buxton in the United Kingdom. Mr. Buxton is involved in legal matters. The letter states:
In answer to the question raised in your letter of 2nd April 1991, I inform you as follows:
In the Federal Republic of Germany there is no financial support on the part of the Government or other public institutions for mining concerns for the recently introduced environmental desirability check of plans. Neither do mining concerns received any compensation if a business plan is not permitted, by reason of the law whether or not it is for environmental points or other requirements. The same applies as regards the withdrawal of mining consents.
Section 18 of the Mining Law and other items foresee that consents and approvals are to be withdrawn if after the events facts appear which would have led to refusal.
So, if we acted, we would be doing something consonant with what already happens in other member states.
I appreciate that the Government are undertaking a consultation process at the moment. However, given the steps already taken, and if the Government recognise the seriousness of the damage being done to existing sites of special scientific interest and the blight already taking place on the homes of thousands of people, they should be prepared to act swiftly and accept our amendment.

Sir Neil Macfarlane: The Minister presented the amendments cogently, but I hope that he will clarify a few matters, bearing in mind that many of the points contained in the new clause and its related amendments are in some ways wholly unprecedented in planning legislation, and that causes some concern.
Although I missed my hon. Friend's opening remarks in introducing the new clause, he referred to the consultation process, which I believe he estimated would be completed by September, and later he referred to consultation in the middle of 1992. Will he set out the precise nature of that consultation, its timing, the people who will be consulted and how it will move through the Association of County Councils, mineral planning authorities and users? It is crucial to know that at this stage, and my hon. Friend may wish to answer by writing to me in the wider notion.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I am raising some points on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who unfortunately cannot be here because she is serving on the Finance Bill Standing Committee. She has received a communication from a major employer in her constituency, and the Minister may have received representations from the National Federation of Clay Industries about the Government's proposals. A number of points have been raised and they must be clarified in view of the terms of the new clause. The company concerned is Steetley Building Products Limited, a major employer in my hon. Friend's constituency. Although it says, as do other members of the National Federation of Clay Industries, that it supports the principle of the registration of IDOs, it questions the time scale involved in the Government's proposals.
Under the Government's proposals, existing IDO permissions will be subject to potential restriction and the imposition of additional operating and restoration conditions without compensation. Does the Minister agree


that the proposals are contrary to established principles of planning law and are potentially damaging to the asset values of permission-holders? Under the current proposals, the holders of IDO permissions must apply for registration of them within six months of the commencement of the Bill's provisions. Does the Minister accept that the proposal allows insufficient time for holders and the authorities to deal properly with the registration of an anticipated 1,200 permissions? 
Under the Government's proposals, appeal against the decision on the validity or extent of IDO permissions will be to the Secretary of State. Does the Minister agree that such an appeal is a legal, not a planning, matter and should be determined by the Lands Tribunal or other competent body? The Secretary of State will be unable to cope with the likely volume of appeals, bearing in mind the number of planning appeals that are currently outstanding.
Under the Government's proposals, the holders of IDO permissions must submit a scheme of operating and restoration conditions for approval by the mineral planning authority within 12 months of registration. Does the Minister accept that 12 months is too short a period, having regard to the time and resources required to submit such plans and the capacity of the mineral planning authority to deal properly with the anticipated work load? 
Under the Government's proposals, operations at a site where there has been no working to any substantial extent for the last two years, ending on 1 May 1991—in other words, dormant sites—cannot recommence until the permission has been registered and a scheme for operating and restoring has been agreed with the mineral planning authority.
Does the Minister agree that the definition of "dormant sites" must exclude marginal sites, which may not have been fully exploited since 1989 due to the recession and because of the cyclical nature of the industry, but which might be required for full production at short notice when demand increases? 
In other words, the company and the national federation is suggesting that a longer time scale is needed to enable the industry to comply with the requirements, which it believes are environmentally correct and which it supports but which it feels are being implemented too quickly. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will say whether he either accepts those points or is prepared to meet the national federation to discuss the matters that have been raised.

Mr. David Bellotti: I agreed with all that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, and in view of the new clause and large number of associated amendments, I need not delay the House for long. A large number of homes in Sussex have been blighted by quarrying, many beautiful sites are being destroyed and the effect on wildlife is considerable. I do not detect in the Bill the strength of measures that we need to cope with those problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is also serving on the Finance Bill Standing Committee, has asked me to raise his concern lest the new clause will not deal with a local problem that his constituents face at Druridge bay. Hon. Members who know that area will appreciate that it has a magnificent six or seven-mile coastline of high sand dunes. Old planning permissions granted by Ministers on appeal in the 1960s

mean that sand will continue to be extracted from the beach and dunes there for nigh on 50 years, with the risk of grave environmental damage.
Any attempt to buy out that permission by compensation would involve sums of money well beyond the resources of the community, because of the lack of limits on the sand that can be taken away. So the Bill will not be sufficient to deal with the problems that exist in Sussex and Northumberland. I hope that the Minister will at some stage consider beefing up his proposals.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I thought some months ago that I would have to delay the House for a considerable time on the issues that we are discussing, because I did not believe at that time that the Government would move on the points that a number of hon. Members then made, even though there were consultations. I did not expect the Government to introduce the type of amendments that are before us today.
I became involved in the subject in a considerable way about a year ago, having been approached by the Backup moors action group in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, it being adjacent to my constituency. I was concerned with an issue being pursued by that body, by Janet Anderson, the prospective Labour candidate for that constituency, and by a number of people in my constituency who were fearful of what might happen in Hapton moor, which runs through that constituency into my constituency.
In October last year I visited the Britannia and Facit site,s in Rossendale, near Bacup. When I visited the site, I was told that the Minister had paid a visit to the area earlier in the day. I was absolutely horrified by the wanton destruction that I saw there, and I became convinced that speedy action had to be taken to deal with IDOs.
While, therefore, I support everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I applaud the Government for having tabled the new clause and its related amendments. Any further delay in taking action to deal with the problem would have represented a negation of duty in protecting the environment. Anyone who sees at first hand what has happened in some areas must be utterly dismayed. We accept the need for quarrying and the fact that aggregates must be made available, but we must do everything possible to protect the environment.
A problem that will be dealt with by the new clause was identified in a written answer that the then Minister, now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, gave me in November, when he said:
No records of applications made under interim development orders were required and no information about the total number of permissions granted is currently available."—[Official Report, 19 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 43.]
We did not even know about that issue. I pursued it not only with the Department of the Environment but with the county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to the matter in Committee from material that I supplied to him. The county council had no records. One of the reasons why the records are inadequate is because of local government reorganisation. Many of the planning authorities that existed in the pre-planning days have now gone out of existence. Some of their records were pretty poor in the first place, but the records kept by some of the new bodies—the county councils that took over those responsibilities—vary considerably.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend was right to move the amendment, but I am sure that the Minister will not accept it. I sincerely feel that the Bill is a tremendous improvement on the existing position and will be welcomed by people in many parts of the country who wish to avoid the devastation that has been taking place as a result of interim development orders.

5 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wish to press the Minister on two problems in which I am particularly interested: sites where limestone pavements and limestone are taken for garden rockeries, and sites in parts of north Wales, where slate is extracted for fireplaces and patios.
Most of the sites are small. They are rarely worked on a full-time basis but often are worked for only a few weeks a year and sometimes only on Saturdays and Sundays. On many occasions, much damage is caused to the environment. The problem is that local people object to a site being worked and, when they inquire, they are told that those who are working the site have permission, so they do not pursue the matter further.
Although the new clause should cover such sites, how will the general public know that people will no longer be allowed to extract minerals from small sites in that historic way? How will they now be able to take action to get such extraction stopped? What advice will be given to people who live close to small quarrying sites and who, over the years, have suffered the nuisance and the environmental damage caused by them, so that they will know that those traditional works should not be continued?
There will inevitably be continuing and increasing problems for planning in a conflict between the need to extract minerals and the need to preserve our countryside. What are the Government doing to reduce that conflict by considering the use of recycling materials, especially for road construction, to ensure that we dramatically reduce the demand for such minerals?

Sir George Young: The debate on new clause 1 has been helpful. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) might have been more forthcoming in welcoming the Government's action. Even the Council for the Protection of Rural England said in a circular:
The CPRE welcomes the positive approach taken by the Government to reducing the problems associated with interim development orders.
It is true that the CPRE would have liked us to go even further. The Association of County Councils said:
We are especially pleased that the Secretary of State has addressed this important issue, by means of New Clause 1 and the associated Schedules and amendments.
It is worth putting it on record that IDOs have been around since just after the second world war and the Government have grasped the nettle and dealt with them after too long a period. We have instituted a review of planning permissions granted in the 1950s and 1960s, which also featured in our debates.
In answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), any extraction of aggregates will now have to be covered by planning permission and must be entered on the planning register. I do not know, from what he told the House, whether that extraction takes place under IDOs or whether such works are already in the planning regime.
Once the provisions of new clause 1 are up and running, any member of the public will be able to look at the planning register and see whether planning consent was granted. People will also be able to see what conditions have been attached to the working of a particular quarry.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how one could reduce demand for aggregates by, for example, recycling. A debate will take place later to deal specifically with that issue and the demand for aggregates and the potential conflict with the environment. My hon. Friend who will answer that debate will give a full response on how we address those broader issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir N. Macfarlane) asked several questions. There will be two consultation exercises. The first will be on the guidance that we shall give to the mineral planning authorities on the working conditions that we should like introduced to deal with the IDOs. We shall consult them before we make our guidelines available. We want to get on with that quickly. The second consultation exercise will be next year on the review of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. That is a broader review of the regime covering consents in the 1950s and 1960s. We shall consult with the industry, landowners and mineral planning authorities long before we lay down regulations, which will be subject to affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament. The consultation will take place next year.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On new clause 8, will the Minister confirm that identical consultations will take place in Scotland with interested parties? I ask that because quarrying activity taking place in Perthshire, at a site which is closely associated with Shakespeare's Macbeth, is causing much concern to local people and to Scots in general. I hope that the Minister has sought an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on that quarrying activity.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman may have seen that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was nodding vigorously. The Bill provides for Scotland in terms equivalent to those that apply to England and Wales. My hon. Friend will write to planning authorities and people in the minerals industry in Scotland to inform them of the action that we are debating this afternoon. A further and more detailed survey will also be conducted to try to improve some of the information available on IDOs in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has been actively involved in the debate in my Department and has a detailed knowledge of the conditions in Rossendale. As a constituency Member, he warmly welcomes the provisions of new clause 1.
We welcome the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) back to our debates. He made an appearance earlier in the Standing Committee, but we were denied the benefit of his help for the rest of the proceedings. There was an Adjournment debate on Druridge bay about four months ago to which the Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) —responded. The broader review of the 1981 Act will embrace the conditions and problems that he described.
In answer to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Vaz), we have consulted the industry and the mineral planning authorities on the time scale and, as a result of


representations, we lengthened the time scale and introduced flexibility. I am confident that the mineral planning authorities can now cope. If there is a local problem, those authorities have the discretion to extend the period beyond 12 months if they feel that more time is needed for applications in their areas.
I agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgend. Parliament is for ever driving up standards of health and environmental protection. We do not give compensation to factories when we impose higher standards of safety. That is why it would be wholly unreasonable to provide compensation when we try to improve environmental conditions in the minerals industry. However, we do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman on the expropriation of assets. There may be parallels on the continent, but we shall not pursue them here. As for people who find that they have bought property close to an IDO, once IDOs are registered with the mineral planning authority, they should appear on that register within two weeks. Therefore, in future, a search should throw up the existence of an IDO.
I think that I have dealt with all the points raised—if not, I promise to write to those hon. Members who have raised issues that have not been addressed. I hope that the House will agree that we can accept all the Government's new clauses, but I cannot advise the House to accept amendment (a) in the name of Opposition Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

Demolition of buildings

'.—(1) In section 55 of the principal Act (meaning of "development") after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of this Act "building operations" includes—

(a) demolition of buildings;
(b) rebuilding;
(c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and
(d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
(g) the demolition of any description of building specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State to local planning authorities generally or to a particular local planning authority.
(3) After section 108(3) of that Act (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by development order) there is inserted—
(4) Regulations made by virtue of this subsection may provide that subsection (1) shall not apply where planning permission granted by a development order for demolition of buildings or any description of buildings is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order."' —[Mr. Yeo.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government new clause 6—Demolition of buildings. 
Government Amendment Nos. 42 to 45, 64 to 67, 54 and 78, 35, 79, 59, 32 to 34, 38 to 41, 46 to 49, 51 to 53, 56 to 58, 81 to 85, 87 to 90, 92 to 94, 36, 50, 55, 60, 37, 100, 102 and 103.

Mr. Yeo: We have listened carefully to the arguments in the debates on demolition that have taken place in both Houses during the passage of the Bill. We have also taken account of the support for the legislation in the responses to our public consultation paper on demolition last year. We have considered the High Court's decision in January this year, in the case of Cambridge city council v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investment Ltd., which held that the demolition of certain semi-detached houses was development.
Amendments were withdrawn in Standing Committee when my hon. Friend the Minister of State promised consultations within Whitehall and a further statement on Report. We have now concluded that the time is right to introduce selective controls on demolition. In reaching that conclusion, I pay tribute to the arguments adduced by hon. Members, in particular to the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who cannot be here today but has been a vigorous and persuasive supporter of the changes. I believe that it was in his constituency that one half of a semi-detached house was demolished without permission. It was that kind of unacceptable and absurd incident that convinced us of the need to extend planning control to cover demolition.
The amendments may look complicated, but they represent the best way forward. Subsection (1) of the new clause brings the demolition of all building within the meaning of building operations and hence within the definition of development. The new clause also provides a direction-making power to enable the Secretary of State to direct that the demolition of any specified type of building does not involve development. That power will be used to exclude from planning control the demolition of all buildings that are not dwelling houses.

Sir Anthony Durant: What will trigger the action that my hon. Friend has just outlined?

Mr. Yeo: Once the Bill has passed on to the statute book, the Secretary of State will use the direction-making power and issue a direction to that effect. In our judgment, the demolition of non-dwelling houses has, on the whole, not presented the same kind of difficulties as the demolition of dwelling houses. Generally, people do not demolish office blocks or industrial premises unless they already have permission to do something else with the site.

Dr. Godman: While I accept what the Minister says about non-residential buildings, there is often a problem with industrial buildings which might well be listed. In my constituency, Gourock ropeworks is a listed building which is literally falling apart and, for understandable reasons, the local authority might seek to demolish it. The proposed demolition of some industrial buildings can cause considerable controversy in local communities.

Mr. Yeo: Listed buildings are already subject to control; there is already a restriction on anyone who wants to demolish a listed building. A local authority which wanted to do so would have to undertake the necessary procedures to obtain permission. Anyone who wants to


demolish a listed building, whether industrial or any other type, must follow procedures which are already quite restrictive.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to make an innocent inquiry about whether the new provisions will deal with the following practical and recent example. The building next to the former Department of Health and Social Security offices at the Elephant and Castle, which is still used for offices, but not for Ministers' offices, was a listed office building. Apparently, it was of great significance in terms of 1930s architecture, although I did not find it as beautiful as other people did. It was knocked down after it had been identified as important and the request for its listing had been made. I have not had a chance to check, but I believe that listing was imminent. Certainly it was known that it was ready to be listed. Will that sort of building be protected after the changes have been made to this legislation?

Mr. Yeo: Not if the buildings are non-dwelling houses and unlisted. The protection available for listed buildings continues and will be unchanged by the new clause. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that some of the listings that have taken place have been somewhat eccentric. I do not think that the new clause is intended to address the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred—demolition taking place when listing is imminent. That is a separate problem which would need a different solution.
The new clause deals with another problem related to dwelling houses. A detached house in a substantial plot in a suburban location could, at present, be demolished without permission and there could then be an application for planning permission for four or five houses on the same plot, thus producing an increase in the land value. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister and hope that he will address the issues in its widest form. If a formal request for listed building status has been submitted and been considered by the relevant authority, whether local authority or Government, we need proper protection so that people cannot come and knock down a building literally the day before it obtains listed building status. The whole issue of whether it would have gained listed status then becomes theoretical. The legislation should contain the principle to ensure that a developer or anyone else who knocks down a building which may be of important architectural significance—whether residential, commercial or industrial—is penalised pretty hard.

Mr. Yeo: Assuming that the new clause is accepted, any residential building will, in future, be capable of being protected. I acknowledge that a problem may still exist with non-residential buildings. It is not possible for us to deal with that problem during the passage of the Bill, but I recognise that there is, at least potentially, a problem. I shall reflect on that and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that some dwelling houses are attached to offices and industrial buildings, particularly in older districts, and perhaps more often in the north than the south—certainly in parts of my constituency. Those buildings are not necessarily in

conservation areas and I would not like my hon. Friend's exemptions to allow circumstances in which someone's home could be attached to something one day and next to a gap site the next. Will my hon. Friend look at that aspect of the proposed exemptions to ensure that such a problem will not arise?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Before the Secretary of State makes a direction under the direction-making power, I will look at the matter to see whether there is a way to give the same protection to someone who lives in a semi-detached house adjacent to an office as to someone living in a semi-detached house adjacent to a dwelling house. We should examine that point sympathetically.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the situation that arose in Salcombe, Devon, could not happen again under the proposed legislation? In Salcombe, a lovely Victorian villa was on the point of being demolished because a developer had bought the land on which the villa was situated and realised that he could build a block of flats there. But for the fact that the local community got wind of the developer's plans, he could and would have knocked down the villa. Fortunately, the local authority, with the help of the Department of the Environment, managed to extend the conservation area to include the house.
It is not right to have to extend conservation areas to save buildings, as we shall end up with conservation areas all over the place where they should not be. Will my hon. Friend say something about people coming along and knocking down houses overnight which, under the new clause, will not be a criminal offence unless the building is listed or there is a tree on the land on which there is a tree preservation order?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is such a vigorous champion and exponent of tighter planning controls that I am amazed that anyone west of Bristol should dream of undertaking anything which might approach a breach of planning control. I can assure him that the new clause will deal directly with the circumstances to which he referred. It is intended to tackle precisely that situation.
We shall propose amendments to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 to grant permitted development rights for the demolition of houses in most circumstances. That will reflect the fact that most demolitions are uncontroversial, but it would be possible to control the most damaging cases by excluding the demolition of semi-detached and terraced houses from permitted development rights.
The amendments to the general development order will be subject to public consultation. I cannot say at this stage exactly what those amendments will be, but our aim is to implement the measure as soon as possible. Of course, the consultation process will give us the chance to consider carefully the points that have been made today.

Mr. Roger Moate: Can the Minister explain how the measure will be given teeth because, by definition, it is quicker to knock something down than to build it? Does not the case for such control demonstrate the need for criminal penalties if people do not conform to the new planning controls? What penalties will be applied to people who demolish buildings despite the new controls?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend may be attempting to introduce into our proceedings a discussion of the principle of criminalisation, with which the amendments and new clauses that have been called do not deal. I can assure my hon. Friend that, if a building or house is demolished in breach of planning control, the local authority will be able to enforce the construction of a replacement building as similar as possible to that which was demolished. Such a building must comply with building regulations and the relevant enforcement notice. That power should act as a strong deterrent to the speculative demolition which has caused concern.
I believe that if the owner of a house demolished it on spec, as it were, and then found that he faced a £100,000, £200,000 or £500,000 bill for reconstruction, that would represent a real deterrent, perhaps greater in financial terms than that envisaged by the advocates of criminalisation. The powers that we are now introducing will be an effective deterrent to such a problem which, although real, is not enormously widespread.
As a result of the amendments, it will for the first time be open to planning authorities to use article 4 directions to prevent the demolition of houses where the authorities see a particular risk or in areas that they regard as vulnerable to damage from speculative demolition. Demolition in conservation areas is already subject to control, but there may be other areas in which greater planning control is desirable. While it would not usually be appropriate to control the whole of a district, we should be prepared to consider sympathetically article 4 directions served on particular buildings or streets where there was a case for extending control for more than six months.

Mr. David Wilshire: I imagine that article 4 directions are likely to be used on older buildings and those which are, in that sense, of more intrinsic value to the community. I was with the Minister up to the point where he said that any replacement that could be enforced would be required to conform to building regulations. The problem is that many wonderful old buildings, which are perhaps not in conservation areas and are not listed, get some of their charm from the fact that they do not conform to building regulations. What will happen if a replacement that meets that requirement is sufficiently ugly not to be a decent replacement?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend poses a fascinating question, but such detail will properly be dealt with in the consultation process that I mentioned a moment ago. It is not appropriate to use the valuable time of the House to discuss it any more specifically than that. It should be possible for common sense to prevail. The local authority will be able to enforce the construction of a replacement building. It must be as similar as possible to the demolished building, but it must comply with building regulations. As my hon. Friend said, it is possible that, in some cases, those objectives may be incompatible, but there is a common-sense solution. Above all, the purpose of the measure is to provide a deterrent to people who demolish buildings on spec. It will be an effective deterrent and I should be surprised if there were many instances such as those to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am concerned that the Minister is a little too sanguine in his reply. In some areas. especially in the west country, where land values are high and property is extremely valuable, fly-by-night merchants

and cowboys are prepared to indulge in speculative demolition. What the Minister says about the local authority being a substantial deterrent is not the case, especially when enforcement officers are hard pressed. My constituency has the fifth or sixth highest volume of planning applications in the country. The officers cannot get around all the sites to enforce the regulations. Because of the high land values, there is a great incentive—greater than the deterrent, I fear—to indulge in such practices which the Minister is apparently seeking to shrug off. The only solution is not a fanciful deterrent, but criminalisation.

Mr. Yeo: I am tempted to go with the debate on criminalisation which was won comprehensively by the Government, who dispatched the advocates of criminalisation in all directions with some help from the Opposition. Although I am tempted to rehearse the arguments again, my hon. Friend is missing the point. Of course there is a significant temptation for people to indulge in what we could call speculative demolition. At present, there is everything to be gained and nothing much to be lost from creating a vacant site where there was previously a dwelling, and there is probably a good chance of getting planning permission for something that might be more valuable.
In the future, people will still have to get planning permission but, once they have made their application, it will be apparent to the local authority—whether its enforcement officers are hard pressed or not—that a breach of planning control has taken place and the speculative demolisher will face an enourmous bill to reconstruct the dwelling that was previously on that site. Therefore, when the new clause has been accepted, the problems will not be nearly so serious as some of my hon. Friends seem to fear.

Mr. Steen: I represent about a third of Torbay so I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is talking about. Is the Minister saying that under the new clause, if a developer knocked down a house he could be asked to rebuild it, but that he could then knock it down, having obtained planning permission to build something else?

Mr. Yeo: It would certainly be a step-by-step process. My hon. Friend is right to say that if someone knocks down a house without the necessary planning permission, the local authority has the power to make him reconstruct that house at great expense. If he subsequently wishes to apply for planning permission to do something else on that site, he would be free to do so, as anyone owning land or a building is free to do.
The amendments allow local planning authorities to control the worst excesses of demolition of dwelling houses without imposing any extra demand, in the majority of cases, on the developer or the local planning authorities. New clause 6 and amendments Nos. 64 to 67, Nos. 78 and 79, Nos. 81 to 85, Nos. 87 to 90, Nos. 92 to 94, No. 100, and Nos. 102 and 103 make similar provisions for Scotland by amending section 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and by making equivalent consequential provisions. I commend the new clause to the House.

Sir Anthony Durant: I represent in the House the National Federation of Demolition Contractors. It may help the House if another point of view is expressed. I must make it clear that the federation is a responsible body. It has high training standards and believes in conforming to the law. It accepts that there are demolition men who do not conform to the federation's high standards on training, on working with the unions and on doing all the right things. It is accepted that there are some cowboys. In general, the federation is not against the proposals, although it is concerned about them.
One concern is that there may be delay. A building may be ready for demolition, but it could be a long and drawn-out process before the demolition contractor gets permission to demolish. The federation is concerned about that because with the downturn in the economy, especially in the south, there is a lack of work.
The federation has asked me to raise the issue of dangerous buildings, which has already been touched on by Opposition Members. Sometimes a building is in such a bad state that the only safe thing to do is to demolish it. Is such a demolition badly affected by the new clause and amendments? The federation would like to know the Minister's views.
The federation is not against the thrust of the Bill and it understands that it has to conform to the law. Members of the federation would much prefer to work on a site when demolition has already been approved than be stopped half way through. They are not keen for such a situation to arise. The federation behaves in a responsible manner, and its only anxieties concern delay and dangerous buildings. I shall be interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee, but I think that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of a particular constituency problem. I hope that he will advise me whether the new clause and amendments will be helpful in this case, which is different from those raised in the debate so far. The residents would like demolition to occur, but the developer of the site is refusing to carry out demolition. It is a long-standing problem. The Harwood shopping precinct, which was built 25 years ago, has now been turned into a ghetto and the residents want it demolished, but the owner, who has planning permission to redevelop the site, has failed to do so and is dragging his feet. The council has failed to force him to do so and everyone is concerned.
I tabled new clause 4 to help solve the problem, but it has not been selected. Will the new clause or amendments help, or are there sufficient powers in existence to enable the council to take action against the developer and to force him to redevelop, or to enable the council compulsorily to purchase the site and sell it to another developer who will do so?
I received a letter today from Mrs. Sheila Turner, a constituent who lives near the precinct. She writes:
I am extremely concerned at the state of the precinct and the fact that Mr. Horrocks"—
the developer concerned—
is thumbing his nose at the people of Harwood and being allowed to get away with it.
The problem has persisted since 1984 and all the residents in the area are thoroughly fed up.
Mrs. Turner continues:
Can nothing be done to force him to demolish the buildings? I moved here 30 years ago into a house built by Mr. Horrocks' firm on New Heys Way. He was a familiar figure, striding along New Heys Way, watching his investment grow. Now that he has allowed the precinct to deteriorate to such an extent that it would not be out of place in an inner city deprived area (complete with yobs) he is constantly 'unavailable' like some prima donna.
I have written to Mr. Horrocks challenging him to take his grandchildren on a walk through the crumbling, disgusting, obscene grafitti daubed wreck and I hope he will feel the shame and embarrassment that the Harwood residents feel every day… It is not a very happy situation for Harwood residents.
Mrs. Turner has written to the council about the matter. The council has been absolutely feeble and pathetic. It has said that it is unable to do anything and it has tried to shift the blame on to the Government. The council said:
Central Government's view would be that the site is in private ownership and its existing planning permissions have been granted and it is up to the private sector, and Mr. Horrocks in particular, to achieve the necessary re-development.
The residents feel that the council should act. Are the new clause and amendments relevant to the problem, or does section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 give the council sufficient power to act now compulsorily to acquire the land? Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether the spirit and principle of the 1990 Act give the council the scope to exercise power of acquisition in a way that harnesses the resources and skills of a private developer in putting the site to effective use?
I have already shown my hon. Friend a cutting from the Bolton Evening News this week in which Mr. Earp, of Tonge Moor road, Bolton, says that I am the only person who is trying to do anything about the problem. Does the council have enough power to act? Does my hon. Friend feel that it should act? My hon. Friend is aware that all this week an enormous court case has gone on in the Strand, which was reported in the Bolton Evening News this week. Bolton council is in trouble for failing to enforce its powers with regard to a covenant. The residents want Barratt to demolish 10 houses that were built on land in contravention of a covenant that stated that there should be no building.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability and power of a local authority to act on enforcement notices is the key to all these matters? At present, local authorities, after the experience on Sunday trading, are reluctant to get involved in lengthy court proceedings which are enormously expensive and which will add an enormous burden to community charge or council taxpayers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution is not necessarily to provide powers for local authorities but to ensure that local authorities are willing to enforce the powers that they already have?

Mr. Thurnham: Indeed. It is no good for councillors to let themselves be walked over by developers. In some cases, there may be some political connotations. Councils may refuse to do their duty in certain areas because, for political reasons, they think that it may be wise to let the residents become unhappy. I am concerned about Bolton council's feebleness in such cases. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether there are


sufficient powers already or whether there is a need for further legislation. If there are sufficient powers, why cannot the council use them?

Mr. Steen: It would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Government on moving some way towards meeting the robust arguments that I and other hon. Friends put in Committee, where I was privileged to serve. The Government wanted the Bill to complete its Committee stage in a day and to be seen as a little tidying-up measure. They wanted it then to be nodded through the House on the day of the Monmouth by-election. The Government chose a good day on which there might be as few hon. Members present as possible. However, in Committee the Government realised that the Bill was important, and that Conservative and Opposition Members saw it as the greatest opportunity for 20 years to put right some of the planning injustices. Unfortunately, the Government tried to make it a tidy Bill and they have been resistant to the idea of extending the Bill to deal with other injustices.
In Committee, I raised on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) the question of demolition. I want to pay tribute to the Government for listening to Conservative Members and for recognising that something needed to be done. I hope that there will be other moves this evening from the Government. I hope that they will be prepared to extend the Bill from being a tidy little measure into a more serious and important Bill which will put right some of the injustices of the planning system.
We have tried to make it more difficult for certain categories of building to be demolished. I am fearful that local authorities could use the Bill as an opportunity to slow down the planning process. I am concerned that, if a building is to be demolished, the developers should not have the additional cost of delay, which is one of the problems of our planning system. I am told that in France and Germany proper compensation is paid and things get done as a result. I hope that that is one problem which the Bill will redress.
My hon. Friend the Minister could also usefully say something about the consultation process. Will that last for months, or will it be completed by the end of July. so that by September or October the demolition clause will be in place?

Mr. Moate: Alas, I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has just said. This is a serious and important Bill and the Government should be warmly congratulated on a number of its provisions, including new clause 2. I congratulate them on having endeavoured to close a gap that has caused much concern over the years. It is right that demolition should be brought within the scope of planning control. I hope that we do not do any damage to the legitimate interests represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir T. Durant).
I fear that once again we are giving duties to local planning authorities without giving them adequate powers of enforcement. We are raising expectations while still allowing those who abuse the law the opportunity to continue doing so. That point follows one dealt with in a

number of interventions to which my hon. Friend courteously responded but with which he did not deal satisfactorily.
The law-abiding citizen has seldom posed a problem. In future, the law-abiding citizen will know that he has to obtain planning permission in order to demolish a dwelling house and the planning authority will have the power of enforcement. But the non-law-abiding citizen will pose a problem. If a house on a large site is demolished without planning permission—to quote the classic example of a large decaying villa on a large site—the person responsible could be required to rebuild it. But the practical consequence is that it is not logical to rebuild a large villa on such a site. In the end, logic will prevail and the planning authority will tell the cowboy that it obviously makes sense to put up a number of smaller homes on that site. In the end, the spec developer will win.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that even where houses have been built without planning permission—we can all think of such examples—there are few instances where such unlawful buildings are demolished because in the end it would be illogical to do so. Therefore, unfortunately, in such cases the developer will always win.
I accept that, as has been said, that leads back to criminalisation. The only way in which the measure can be given teeth is to have some criminal penalties. I suspect that that has been argued through. There are strong arguments for and against that, but at some stage specific penalties have to be imposed to deal with someone who wantonly and flagrantly disobeys planning laws. I welcome the control over demolition, but it is a fairly toothless proposal which will present many planning authorities with problems, not solutions.

Mr. Allason: My concern about new clause 2 is that it does not cover the difficulties experienced in the south-west. A few moments ago I mentioned high property values. South Devon has experienced numerous examples of appalling abuses of planning regulations. In my constituency there is a major controversy relating to the improvement or development, call it what one will, of the Cockington valley preservation area. On the fringes of that site there has been a long battle over where the boundaries are to be drawn. We have had classic examples of a footpath going straight through the living room of a house that has never been occupied because a mistake was made in drawing the boundaries. In no case, as far as I am aware, has an order been made for the demolition of such properties, which have been put up quickly by speculative builders. Often, when there is a threat of enforcement, the dwelling will be occupied, probably more quickly than usual, in order to get through another loophole.
5.45 pm
I am sure that a substantial proportion of hon. Members' mail is dominated by planning issues which are not our direct responsibility. However, we should be prepared to shoulder the burden of responsibility for planning regulations for the next 20 years. The past 20 years have identified numerous loopholes that have been exploited by the unscrupulous. We have an opportunity this evening to close some of those loopholes.
A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) mentioned giving those responsibilities to local authorities without giving them the power of enforcement. The House has a tendency to give


important responsibilities to local authorities without contemplating the costs involved or providing them with the resources necessary. I have already mentioned the cost of enforcement, but there are insufficient officers in the planning departments, certainly in Torbay, rigorously to enforce the existing regulations. Numerous other flaws have been exploited over the years. My great concern has always been development on green field sites, but in my constituency there are very few green field sites left because unscrupulous developers have concreted over every blade of grass around.
Enforcement is the key. The Minister has strong faith in local authorities' ability to enforce demolition orders where there has been improper development, but can he cite cases where such enforcement orders have been enforced? In my recollection, there have been few and invariably they have involved lengthy legal proceedings. At the end of the day the developer has only rarely been required to demolish a property that has been put up in contravention of the regulations.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this evening that he is not just pushing a Bill through the House of Commons; he will be affecting the lives of millions of people throughout Britain who will have to live with this legislation for many years to come. There is a tendancy known as NIMBY—not in my back yard. We have an opportunity now to legislate for the future in order to ensure that some of the loopholes that have been so blatently exploited in the past are finally closed.
I beg my hon. Friend to consider carefully what I have said. When the moment comes for him to retire to south Devon where I will welcome him as my constituent, he will not want unscrupulous developers building close to his retirement home.

Mr. Wilshire: I imagine that in Committee it became clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that I am not an enthusiast for extending the powers of planning committees over the lives of individuals. I have said on a number of occasions that I have reservations about the wisdom of bringing demolition within the remit of planning control, and I still do.
I say that against the background of my constituency being one of many with the sorts of problems that were discussed in Committee and which have been mentioned again today. The particular problem that my constituency seems to share with a number of others is the enthusiastic speculative developer who knocks down a large house and then negotiates on density afterwards. I am well aware of the consequences that that can have. Therefore, although I have reservations about the proposed approach, I keep an open mind.
I have throughout been against a blanket requirement, in all circumstances, for any demolition to be subject to planning permission. The suggested change to the general development order as a means of ensuring that blanket prohibition is not the order of the day offers a very neat solution, and one that commends itself to me.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not succumb to the temptation to allow many councils to withdraw permitted development rights—or in this case, permitted demolition rights—across large swathes of a local authority's area. That would be to fly in the face of the measure, which is meant to give protection where it is needed without taking away individual rights.
Mention has been made of the possible slowing down in the planning process that could occur. In Committee, I commended to my hon. Friend the Minister a change in the law that would make a deemed approval the order of the day if, after 12 weeks, a decision had not been taken. In the case of an application to demolish, it would not be unreasonable to expect any planning authority, under all circumstances, to reach a decision within that period of time. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether a deemed approval could be a way of avoiding delay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) referred to dangerous buildings. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it crystal clear to planning authorities, inspectors, and courts if necessary, that the requirement to safeguard public safety would be adequate justification for not necessarily waiting for a decision in the case of a building that was structurally dangerous.
Replying to my intervention earlier, my hon. Friend the Minister said that a case could be made for leaving certain details to the common sense of the people involved. I implore him not to place too much store by common sense in the planning process. I chaired a planning committee for five years, and my experience of planning officers is that, often, they are not noted for displaying common sense in their approach to such issues—and I have yet to meet a developer who displays common sense when profit is dangled before him. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tie up all the details, to make it clear what is meant by the provision and by the general development order. Despite my reservations, I believe that the overall solution is neat, and I shall take great pleasure in supporting it.

Dr. Godman: In speaking in support of new clause 6, I make no apology for touching briefly on a constituency matter. If one drives into my constituency from the east, along the River Clyde, one first sees the remarkably conserved Newark castle. Its superb condition is a tribute to successive administrations at the Scottish Office, Labour and Conservative, and to others involved in the conservation of Scotland's ancient buildings. Alongside that landmark, as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows, is the busy, bustling little Ferguson shipyard.
The juxtaposition of that ancient castle and the shipyard is easy on the eye. However, just 50 or 80 yards further into my constituency is the most appalling, squalid, derelict and decaying cluster of buildings, which include the Gourock road works.
I acknowledge that that site represents a fine example of 19th century Scottish industrial architecture, and that alongside it are two Georgian houses. In an earlier intervention, the Minister pointed out that if those properties are listed buildings, action can be taken to protect them. However, that is an extremely long-winded process, and I regret that new clause 6 will be unable to deal with the circumstances in which my constituents find themselves.
Port Glasgow is ravaged by high unemployment. It is seeking to persuade industrialists, through the Locate in Scotland Bureau, to locate their operations there. However, if Japanese, American or Scandinavian business men drive into Port Glasgow, after they have been greeted by the agreeable vista of Newark castle they will be confronted by the Gourock road works. If that site and the


buildings alongside it can be conserved, that should be done, but it is unfair to place on the people o7 Port Glasgow the burden of living with that distressing squalor. New clause 6 will not allow Inverclyde district council to deal with that problem expeditiously.
I mentioned that the buildings concerned might be conserved rather than abolished. The Scottish Office published a fine book on old buildings, which has a foreword by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, now the Secretary of State for Transport, in which he argued the case for conservation. However, despite the commitment that I have to preserving Scotland's historical architecture, both industrial and aristocratic, I believe that the moment has arrived for decisive action in respect of the appalling squalor of the Gourock road works and the adjoining buildings.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that representatives of his district council met me some time ago for a detailed discussion of the case to which he refers, and to ascertain whether the serving of a repairs notice on the property owner in question would be a good way forward. I undertake to give the hon. Gentleman a written account of the situation to date. We all share his interest in finding a way forward, bearing in mind the importance to industry and to the local community of a favourable decision being reached.

Dr. Godman: I am deeply grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for displaying his characteristic courtesy in that intervention. The councillors and officials who met him told me that he gave their case a fair-minded and courteous hearing, and I am pleased to learn of his continuing concern. The situation that I have described is a blight on the residents of Port Glasgow and could deter people from setting up homes and industries on the lower Clyde. There is no waterway in the whole of the United Kingdom more beautiful than the firth of Clyde. It is a disgrace, and a continuing scandal, that such squalor should be allowed to remain literally on its banks. I repeat my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for his gracious intervention, and I repeat that something must be done in the near future about the situation of which I have spoken.

Mr. Clive Soley: The best that I can say is that the Opposition give the new clause a low-key welcome. Let me add, however, that I greatly enjoy these debates; I am always impressed by the way in which right-wing Members from the south of England, confronted by the developers, suddenly abandon their commitment to Thatcherism and move so far to the left that they bypass democratic socialism and cross straight into authoritarian eastern European communism—of the old style, that is. They want to criminalise all the developers. Conservative Members such as the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) want to create a criminal offence—or perhaps that does not apply to the hon. Member for Spelthorne.

Mr. Wilshire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting himself before I had a chance to correct him. I am not in favour of criminalisation

6 pm

Mr. Soley: I know that this does not relate to the substance of the debate, but it is important. I think that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) inclined towards the idea of criminalisation. It is not the answer; the answer is enforcement. The hon. Member for Torbay mentioned this.
Criminalisation is not the answer for three reasons. First, it does not deter; secondly, it is not necessarily any quicker; thirdly, it is not a particularly effective method. Enforcement, however, means that the developer must put right what he has done wrong, and it is therefore more effective. The distinction is important, although I do not want us to engage in the "criminalisation" debate all over again. I understand the force of the argument about irreversible development; indeed, I have put that argument myself. In such circumstances, a developer would be unable to put right what had been done wrong. In other circumstances, however, the most effective deterrent will be the power of enforcement. It is criticisms of that kind that get the Government into difficulties with their Back Benchers when new clauses such as this are being debated.
Another problem is the way in which the Government legislate. I agree that something must be done about demolition, and that it must be covered by the planning rules. The Government, however, tend to favour secondary legislation, thus placing the Minister in a difficult position. He cannot answer his Back Benchers who present him with various types of case—not just specific cases—because the legislation is not spelt out in the detail that would enable us to know exactly what the law is. If I were asked to identify the main criticism of the Government's planning machinery, I would cite the lack of certainty.

Mr. Patrick Ground: Throughout the relevant period, the law has been represented by the Town and Country Planning Act 1971— until the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I am at a loss to know what changes in the law the hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Soley: I am referring generally to the planning legislation introduced by the present Government. When legislating on planning and the issues surrounding it, they have tended to give the Secretary of State power to intervene. They have done the same in regard to affordable housing. It is a secondary power, rather than a clear power.
I should place on record my admiration for the courage of the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). Surrounded by colleagues all of whom were berating the demolition industry, the hon. Gentleman simply stood up and said, "I represent, and speak for, the demolition industry." That must have been rather like walking into St. Paul's cathedral and saying, "I speak for Satan"—or, worse still, walking into St. Paul's cathedral without paying the entry fee, which I suspect is now an even worse crime.
There is a problem for the demolition industry; again, the problem is one of certainty. The industry has not consulted me, but I would guess that its representatives have complained to the hon. Member for Reading, West that they do not know where they stand. That is the problem which confronts the Minister. In my view, the legislation should have spelt matters out more clearly; the


Government have relied less on guidance and secondary legislation. That would have introduced a little more certainty into the planning system, benefiting both local authority planners, who must make the decisions, and the demolition industry itself.
Having said that, I should add that I have no doubt that the measure represents a necessary part of the Bill in its present form. Although I do not like this type of legislation, I support its implications and the direction in which it is aimed.

Mr. Michael Mates: I rarely speak in environment debates. Before the Whips rush off to sound the alarm bells, let me assure my hon. Friends that I have no intention of moving an amendment to the Bill. I had intended to speak later about enforcement, but, as the subject has arisen during our current debate, it may be more convenient for me to say now what little I have to say.
I agree with the Government that it would have been wrong to criminalise the enforcement process, although I well understand the reasons given by some of my hon. Friends. We are looking for a deterrent. I have a suggestion which I hope the Government will consider and, if they deem it sensible, will introduce in another place.
On so many occasions, development companies or individuals flout the planning laws and do something that they know they should not be doing. They may, for instance, put a caravan in a field, knowing perfectly well that such an action requires permission. They hope that, by extending the enforcement process—by appealing, and using various delaying mechanisms—they will be able to leave the caravan there for a long time. With any luck, they will be allowed, if they are persistent enough, to continue to do what they have already done illegally.
Although I do not think that that should become a crime, I believe that the Bill would provide a deterrent if it provided that no council should be able to consider allowing planning permission to someone who had breached the planning law until he had stopped doing so. That would mean that no retrospective application for a caravan to be allowed to remain on a field—or a barn that had not been erected for agricultural purposes—could be even considered until the object in question had been removed.

Mr. Keith Speed: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. However, I was involved in such a case. It lasted for six years, and goodness knows how many letters were written to the Department. The trouble was that the ownership of the caravan changed every other week. It belonged to a travelling family: ownership switched from the old lady to the son, and so on. Trying to establish responsibility for it was a lawyer's nightmare.

Mr. Mates: Only rapid and forthright enforcement can solve problems like that. I am not talking about anything as blatant as my hon. Friend's example. There are people who will defy the law and go on doing it. Others, as a matter of policy, will dig footings without permission so that they can then say that they have started something

Until those footings have been removed and the land has been restored, nothing should be allowed to be started retrospectively.
After several years—because of a change in the control of a council or planning authority, for instance—something that was known to be wrong when it was done becomes right. I do not believe that anyone should be able to negotiate with the planning authorities on that basis when they have themselves been in breach of the law.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: My hon. Friend's suggestion would obviate a problem that I have encountered. That problem has arisen when a breach of planning permission has been taken to court by the district council, and the court has refused to make a decision while planning permissions have not yet been decided.

Mr. Mates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to go through all the possible examples; I am sure that every hon. Member will know of one that has affected him or her professionally. I am making a general point about the frustration experienced by local authorities when people have defied them, and then embarked on a process with which they must co-operate because of the present state of the law.
If we can change that, we need not go as far as creating a criminal offence. The deterrent will be provided: as long as the offending breach is there, no one—not the courts, not the local authorities—will consider regularising the position. Planners must start again, as does the honest citizen, by doing what is proper and applying to do something before they do it. I acknowledge that I am rather late in putting this suggestion to my hon. Friends. I went to the Department of the Environment some years ago with it, but at the time Ministers were not in the same listening mode as I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is in now. I hope that the Government will consider my suggestion if they think it appropriate and do something about it in the other place.

Mr. Yeo: This has been a formidable debate. Much more interest than I had imagined has been evinced in this humble new clause which we have tabled to deal with the problem in a way which we believe will be effective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who acknowledged his interest in the matter at the start of his speech, will be aware—although the House may not be—that his predecessor in his role as parliamentary adviser to the National Federation of Demolition Contractors was none other than my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. In view of the advancement of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) from the post of adviser to the federation to his present post in Government, I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West to the Front Bench again shortly.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West confirm that the National Federation of Demolition Contractors is not against the aims of the new clause. I emphasise to him and to other of my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate that, where planning permission has been granted for a replacement building on a site, even if it is the site of a dwelling house, it is not necessary to seek specific permission to demolish the dwelling house. The fact of granting permission for a new building on the site


which can be constructed only after the existing dwelling house has been demolished will remove the need to go through any further process.
Some of the anxieties which have been expressed about delays may prove to be misplaced. The majority of responsible developers and, after the new clause has been passed, even irresponsible developers will find it much quicker and more convenient to seek permission for the building or development with which they wish to replace an existing dwelling house before attempting to demolish it. Therefore, they will choose to seek planning permission. Once they have obtained permission, they will be free to press on with the demolition without further delay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West spoke about dangerous buildings. It is an important point which I hope that we shall address when we consult about how the provisions that we are introducing will be implemented. There is a real issue at stake. I undertake to consider it carefully during the consultation.

Sir Anthony Durant: Bearing in mind my interest, will the Government issue a consultative document to the National Federation of Demolition Contractors so that it can express its views?

Mr. Yeo: Of course I shall ensure that the federation receives our consultation document.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) raised a constituency problem. He managed with some ingenuity to make a speech which it seemed had been prepared for the new clause which was not called. His speech gave the House a chance to recognise what a vigorous champion of his constituents' interests he is. I cannot comment on the specific cases that he raised. However, as he knows, I have written to him today to emphasise the powers that all local authorities have on compulsory purchase. Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives local authorities powers of compulsory acquisition where that acquisition would be in the interests of the better planning of the area. Such compulsory purchases must be confirmed by the Secretary of State.
I recognise the problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East identified. The powers that the local authority has can be used where the redevelopment would be carried out not by the local authority or any other statutory body but by a private developer. I hope that he will draw those powers to the attention of his local authority and ensure that if it is possible for it to use them in the cases to which he referred, it will do so, as it is so clearly in the interests of his constituents.
My hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason) raised several points which seemed in some respects similar to the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East. As I said, we shall consult local authorities. I am sure that they will advise us if they feel that their powers of enforcement are inadequate. However, existing enforcement powers are being put to good use already. There are plenty of examples of local authorities taking successful enforcement action to require the demolition of an unauthorised building.
In today's press, hon. Members may have seen that a building described by the developers as a cow shed which was constructed at a cost of £350,000 and contained

windows and fireplaces—perhaps for fires to keep the lambs warm in their early months of life—was required to be demolished. It was an unlawful development and it has now been blown up. The developer has lost his £350,000 house as a result of the vigorous enforcement action taken by the relevant planning authority. There have been several other such examples. I shall not go through the whole list now, but the House should be assured that many local authorities are making effective use of existing powers, even before they have the benefit of the new clause.
6.15 pm
As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee—of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay was not one—will know, the Bill contains a fair number of additional enforcement powers which greatly strengthen the position of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) suggested that the Government had hoped to put the Bill through its Standing Committee in a day. I assure the House, and hon. Members who served on the Committee will recognise, that there is no possibility of any Standing Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams serves completing its proceedings in a day. A year would probably be nearer the mark. However, in the end my hon. Friend showed great restraint, as he did again in his speech today.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams for his congratulations to us on responding to the anxieties that people have expressed about demolition. I share his anxiety about the delay, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, in practice, I do not believe that it will prove to be a major difficulty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made an interesting suggestion of a 12-week limit within which local authorities should consider applications. Thereafter, applications would be deemed to have been approved. I shall reflect on that point. In practice, the vast majority of delays will arise on applications for redevelopment rather than specifically for demolition, so I hope that long delays in considering applications for demolition will not be a frequent problem. I shall certainly reflect on my hon. Friend's suggestion.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams asked about the consultation process. I cannot give him a precise date. We certainly wish to implement the proposals as soon as possible, so I hope that the consultation process will be completed during the summer. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) expressed his opposition to criminalisation. I was interested in his suggestion that local authorities should refuse to consider applications where some unlawful development has commenced. My initial thought is that it would be a sweeping measure. In some cases, a minor and technical breach of planning control occurs inadvertently when some new development takes place before planning permission has been granted. It might be rather sweeping to say that no application for any development can be even considered while the technical breach exists. However, I shall certainly reflect on my hon. Friend's suggestions.

Mr. Mates: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not suggest that, if a developer or individual makes a mistake and goes wrong after being given permission, the matter cannot be put right. I suggest that, if a developer sets off


to do something without permission, he cannot do so inadvertently. If one digs footings for a house, one knows that one must have permission to do so. If one sets up a caravan park, one knows that one requires permission to do so. When a development is undertaken without permission ab initio and deliberately, we should say that the breach must stop before any planning application can be entertained. That is a similar principle to the Latin saying which I cannot recall—I cannot immediately see a lawyer in the Chamber. It is to the effect that, when one comes before justice, one must come with clean hands. Someone else could put that more eloquently than me, but that is what I mean.

Mr. Yeo: I appreciate the distinction that my hon. Friend draws. I shall reflect on his interesting suggestion and write to him.

Mr. Soley: In Committee, this matter was thrashed out to some extent in the context of the matter of enforcement I want to put to the Minister again a point that I put to him on that occasion. It is related to the point that has just been made by his hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). If a local authority had a general duty of enforcement, including the possibility of retrospective planning permission, it would be able to get round the problem. If a breach, whether intentional or unintentional, were very minor, the local authority might not want to create a big hassle. In such a case, the authority could give permission retrospectively, but would still have a general duty to enforce. Extreme cases such as have been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Hampshire would be caught, but the local authority could deal with minor indiscretions.

Mr. Yeo: I am not sure how that would fit in with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). It seems to me that the granting of retrospective planning permission would be made impossible if my hon. Friend's suggestion were accepted. I understand the force of the argument that any unauthorised development must be reversed before an application is considered. Such a procedure would indeed be a major deterrent. People would have to be extremely careful, even if they were thinking of erecting only a garage. What the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is suggesting is rather different. I do not think that the two suggestions go together.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith explained that he was not in favour of criminalisation. Perhaps, as he is a former probation officer, that is not surprising. He may not want to have to look after a lot of developers should he lose his seat in this House. But I do not believe that the problem of uncertainty is quite as great as he suggests. Indeed, I see some advantages in the use of secondary legislation. It would give the Government—indeed, any Government—some flexibility. If, after a number of years' experience, a review of practices were needed, it might be rather easier to change the law through secondary legislation than through a new Bill. Part of the problem relating to demolition arises from the case to which I referred when I opened this debate.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised. If not, I shall gladly write to any hon. Member who feels aggrieved. I believe that the Government's case is clear, and I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

HOME LOSS PAYMENTS: NORTHERN IRELAND

'An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (exercise of legislative functions for Northern Ireland) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of sections 61 and 62 of this Act—

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution procedure and procedure in cases of urgency), but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Yeo.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 62.

Mr. Yeo: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of these measures is to permit the extension to Northern Ireland, by the negative resolution Order in Council procedure, of the home loss payment provisions contained in clauses 61 and 62. The measures are essentially technical, but I shall be happy to explain them further if anyone wishes me to do so.

Mr. Soley: This issue was debated in Committee, but I should like to put it on record that what applies to the rest of the United Kingdom applies to Northern Ireland also. Tenants deserve a better deal. We welcome the increased home loss payments for owner-occupiers, but it is unreasonable to assume that a tenant's investment in a home is necessarily much less as is reflected in the provision. As was said many times in Committee, many tenants invest a great deal of time and money in their homes. If my memory serves me correctly, the compensation that such a person receives for his home is £2,500. That is a paltry sum for someone who has occupied a house for, say, 30 years and has spent much of his savings on putting it into high-class condition. It is sad that the Minister cannot be more generous.

Mr. Yeo: We have had a fairly extensive debate on that problem. These measures will honour an assurance, given in another place many years ago, that the people of Northern Ireland would be treated no less favourably, in financial terms in relation to planning matters, than their counterparts in Great Britain.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS

'.—(1) In section 19 of the 1972 Act (meaning of "development") after subsection (1) there is inserted—
(1A) For the purposes of this Act "building operations" includes—

(a) demolition of buildings;
(b) rebuilding;


(c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and
(d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
(g) the demolition of any description of building specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State to planning authorities generally or to a particular planning authority.
(3) After section 154(3) of the 1972 Act (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by development order) there is inserted—
(3A) Regulations made by virtue of this subsection may provide that subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply where planning permission granted by a development order for demolition of buildings or any description of buildings is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order.".'.—[Mr. Yeo.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7

INTERDICTS RESTRAINING BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL

`After section 260 of the 1972 Act there is inserted—
Interdicts restraining breaches of planning control 260A.—(1) Whether or not they have exercised or propose to exercise any of their other powers under this Act, a planning authority may seek to restrain or prevent any actual or apprehended breach of any of the controls provided for by or under this Act by means of an application for interdict.
(2) On an application under subsection (1) of this section the court may grant such interdict as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of restraining or preventing the breach.
(3) In this section "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It introduces a power to allow planning authorities to seek interdict in cases where a breach of planning control has taken place or is expected to take place. This express power to take action in this way, irrespective of the stage reached in the planning enforcement process, will greatly assist authorities to ensure that cases of the most flagrant abuse can be dealt with speedily. I know that this new power will be welcomed by planning authorities to help them to protect the environment in our towns and countryside.
Once a developer decides to flout the planning system by putting up some monstrous development without seeking planning permission, it takes some time to go through the full enforcement procedures. Now, an authority will be able to take immediate action to prevent the development from taking place. Let me take another example—that or a developer who intends to cut down an expanse of woodland of outstanding amenity. Interdict will prevent that. Anyone breaching an interdict is in contempt of court, and risks a heavy penalty. I believe that the new clause will be widely welcomed.

Dr. Godman: I welcome the new clause. Earlier today, I spoke to Mr. Ian Wilson, the chief executive of Inverclyde district council. Mr. Wilson—an official whom the Minister has met more than once—said that the new clause is precisely the kind of medicine that planning

authorities need. He referred to a case that has recently caused a great deal of controversy in Greenock. Developers simply ignored the local authority and commenced the construction of a private nursing home. I think that the Minister is familiar with the case. Inverclyde district council tried to have the construction halted. Under the existing scheme, the builders were issued with an order. But, as the Minister knows, many months can pass before decisive action is taken. If that issue had not been settled in a most amicable fashion this week, the council would eventually have had to take the case to the procurator fiscal. That would be an unwieldy and cumbersome means of dealing with builders and others who are less than scrupulous.
I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the destruction of woodland. What is proposed will please many rural authorities throughout mainland Scotland, as well as people in the islands.
Presumably, as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has welcomed the provision, consultations took place with legal parties. Subsection (3) of the new clause says:
the court' means the Court of Session or the sheriff. Presumably "the sheriff" means the sheriff court. Is the Minister in a position to estimate how long it would take to obtain such an interdict, given that, with modern methods, a stretch of woodland could be cleared within several days, or an even shorter time?
How long would it take to obtain the court's support? Also, has the Minister or his officials estimated the increase in the work load of the sheriff court or the Court of Session? The incident in Greenock to which I referred by way of illustration is not an extremely rare phenomenon, as any member of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would say. It is necessary to obtain the court's support in a shorter time. There is also the question of the extra work placed upon the sheriff court. Presumably—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—most of the actions will be taken in that court and not in the Court of Session.
I welcome the proposal. It will be greeted with pleasure by many people throughout Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his remarks. Certainly this will provide another effective tool to enable local authorities to take very quick action indeed.
The hon. Member is anxious about how quickly courts will consider such cases. It will be very rapidly indeed in the case of interdicts—literally within hours. Obviously there is a problem with the work loads before the courts, but that is because cases are taking much longer, and it does not relate to interdicts. Committees are sitting to ensure that the courts process cases as quickly as possible, and improvements have been made in recent months. With those assurances, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

OLD MINING PERMISSIONS

`. After section 49G of the 1972 Act there is inserted


"Old mining permissions. 
49H.—(1) In this section and Schedule 10A to this Act, `old mining permission' means any planning permission for development—

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or
(b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,

which is deemed to have been granted by virtue of paragraph 77 of Schedule 22 to this Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 10th November 1943).
(2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered.
(3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 16th May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out after the coming into force of this section unless—

.(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above; and
(b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.

(4) An old mining permission shall—
(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and
(b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.
(5) An old mining permission shall, if—

(a) such an application is granted; but
(b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,

cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served.
(6) Subject to subsection (3) above, this section—

(a) shall not affect any development carried out under an old mining permission before an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined or, as the case may be, the date on which the permission ceases to have effect; and
(b) shall not affect any order made or having effect as if made under section 49 or 49A to 49F of this Act (discontinuance, etc., orders).".'.—[Sir George Young.]'

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

TRANSITIONAL PROVISION AS TO COMPENSATION REGULATIONS

`. Without prejudice to section 17(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made, or having effect as if made, by virtue of section 167A (regulations as to mineral compensation) of the 1972 Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of paragraph 10A of Schedule 7 to this Act, have effect as if made under section 167A of that Act as substituted by that paragraph.'—[Sir George Young.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

ADDITIONAL SUM OF COMPENSATION FOR SMALL FIRMS

`After section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 there is inserted—
5A.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in addition to compensation in respect of the value of any interest in land assessed in accordance with section 5 of this Act, there shall be paid by the acquiring authority an additional sum.
(2) Payment of an additional sum under this section shall be made only where:

(a) the land or premises acquired are used for the purposes of a small firm, and
(b) the claimant is the owner of the land, or is a tenant entitled to compensation under section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) the amount of the additional sum shall be calculated as 10 per cent. of the compensation referred to in subsection (1).
(4) Where relevant the amount of the additional sum shall be adjusted as follows:

(a) If the claimant is entitled to an additional sum under this section and a home loss payment under section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, only the higher of the two amounts shall be payable and not both.
(b) No payment of an additional sum under this section shall exceed £25,000.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time by order substitute another sum for the sum specified in subsection (4)(b) above; and the power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) In this section:
`Small firm' means any person who, at the date of the notice to treat, is carrying on a business and the number of employees employed by him, added to the number of employees employed by any associated employer of his, does not exceed 20.".'. —[Mr. Monte.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. Moate: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to extend to small firms the treatment granted to home owners in the Bill. In my understanding at least, the term "small firms" includes small farms. Therefore, I believe that this proposal will certainly be warmly welcomed in the county of Kent because of the prospect of railway development there at some time in the future. Having said that, this is not a parochial matter—the clause will be welcomed by small businesses and farmers throughout the land, because it extends them justice which has so far been denied to them. I am also delighted that justice is now being offered to house owners in this Bill.
New clause 5 is a sensible proposal. It is limited in cost and is impeccably drafted—in case any of my hon. Friends seek to suggest that it is faulty on those grounds. Also, I believe that it is well-precedented. I hope that it will be acceptable in some form or other to my hon. Friends.
I should say how much I welcome the home loss payment which is incorporated in the Bill. That is an important measure and it has not yet received the welcome or the praise that it deserves from the country. There can be few hon. Members who have not had to face constituents whose homes are to be compulsorily purchased, especially as a result of road developments. We


have had to defend the argument that they would get a district valuer's valuation of their home, plus the modest home loss payment that has been provided for.
Few of us would find it difficult to argue the case for compulsory purchase on the basis of public need. Equally, for a long time, most of us have conceded the principle that one would like more generous treatment of home owners and others who are compulsorily dispossessed of their property. Therefore, I warmly welcome the proposal that home owners whose property is compulsorily purchased will get 10 per cent. of the value—up to a maximum of £ 15,000—the fact that there is greater flexibility with blight notice acquisitions, and that the residential qualifications are reduced from five years to one year. Those proposals are warmly welcomed and it is right that Parliament should be doing that. The only people who will be unhappy are those whose property has been purchased compulsorily in recent years and who will not have received such a payment.
I congratulate my hon. Friends on that proposal and I hope that it will be seen as a step in the right direction towards restoring equity and speeding up development. If we are generous in the way that we deal with compulsory purchase, it must reflect upon individuals who are faced with such purchases. That will make them less resistant and more willing to deal—less inclined to object when development is proposed. It has often been observed how much better the French are at getting on with developments. Why should that be? It is often because the French are more generous in their dealings with individuals, companies and others who are compulsorily bought out. We have not been generous in the past and the Bill goes a great way to remedy that. It is a step in the right direction, but let us take it a little further. Unwilling sellers of small firms or small farms should be treated in the same way as we are proposing to deal with home owners in the Bill. New clause 5 sets that out.
As I have made clear, the clause is modest in its intent and limited in cost. We are not seeking to widen the clause to cover large businesses—it is specifically for small businesses. We are not seeking an open-ended commitment—it is limited to about £25,000 maximum payment. The clause has been well drafted—not by me, I hasten to add—because it follows clear precedents in other legislation defining small firms. I refer especially to the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill, where we clearly defined small firms and in clause 30 provide for compensation for consequential losses for small firms. If we could do it there, why should we not do it in this instance? I suppose that it will be argued that the Government are providing compensation for home owners because there are unknown costs if a person has to move home. If we apply that rule to home owners, why should we not apply it to small businesses?
The old compensation legislation provided that no extra compensation should be given merely because the compulsory purchase involved an unwilling seller. But that same principle applied to homes, so why should it not apply to the fanner? In many cases, if a small farmer or a small company is going to lose land or a part of its land, it too is faced with the fact that tremendous uncertainty and unknown costs that might arise in the future. It is true that they might well already receive some compensation for severance or for other injurious effects of the development or compulsory purchase, but they do not

know quite what the future holds in terms of relocation, or how long it will take to get alternative land, or even if that is possible.
The disruption that small firms and farms face in those circumstances is very serious indeed. Is it unreasonable that Parliament should say that an additional 10 per cent. of the land value should be paid to such companies or farmers because society has demanded their land for development? That seems an eminently reasonable proposition, and I should think that it will automatically gain acceptance.

Mr. Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a compulsory purchase order is often a feared instrument which has an appallingly disruptive effect on people's lives and on small businesses? However, being more generous, as new clause 5 proposes, will assist in achieving the development for which the compulsory purchase order has been made and will avoid some of the fears, difficulties and constraints of time that result from orders being opposed.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The new high-speed rail link through Kent is generating tremendous fear and alarm in many parts of the county, but how many landowners or small businesses on the proposed line of development would more readily accept the proposition if they knew that they would be offered fair compensation? By "fair", I mean a small payment as compensation for their property being compulsorily purchased. How much more willing they would be to respond constructively if the system were fair.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend is introducing this subject, which is important to many people in this country. Does he agree that the problem is that the planning process has not been generous? People have dug their heels in, as a result of which planning new development has taken much longer than necessary. New clause 5 would speed things up, because it offers a more practical, positive and constructive approach. People would co-operate rather than dig their heels in.

Mr. Moate: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The Government introduced the home loss payment because homes are often disrupted or acquired to allow road construction. Most hon. Members are aware of cases where we would have wished a home owner to be compensated more generously. My hon. Friend rightly said that we have not been generous with the dispossessed, but surely society should be generous in those circumstances. Being generous will help the process.

Mr. Steen: It will speed it up.

Mr. Moate: It will speed it up. Being cynical, one suspects that sometimes the Treasury has found delay to be an ally as it has had to spend less money. Speed has not always been its main concern, but the home loss payment is evidence that that has now changed.
The proposal to extend that to farmers and small businesses—limited in its effect along the lines precedented in the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill—is sound and will help tremendously in further development.
Even if we do not manage to persuade Ministers of the importance of the new clause, the problem will return time and again. It will certainly return when Kent is faced with major development.

Mr. Steen: I am told that the French build railways and motorways so quickly because they have a generous approach to compensation. Farmers, small businesses and home owners are happy to relinquish ownership because they are paid the market rate and more. Such development is appallingly slow in Britain. Under new clause 5, public money would be spent wisely and the process would be speeded up. Economically, it would be a much better way of proceeding.

Mr. Moate: I believe that the French principle is to pay 125 per cent. of value. I do not know whether that produces a queue of applicants enthusiastically wanting to sell their homes, but it makes for a happier and fairer society. I hope that we will move steadily in that direction.

Mr. David Nicholson: I intended to speak in support of new clause 5, but as my hon. Friend is putting his case so effectively, that will not be necessary. If my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) were here, they would support his points in respect of the north Devon link road, which has brought considerable benefits, although delayed, to north Devon. Will my hon. Friend consider a point that has been made to me and other colleagues by the National Farmers Union about a farmer who loses some land for development not only to a public authority but to a privatised company which enjoys compulsory acquisition powers, such as a privatised water authority? Will my hon. Friend draw out that example as evidence for his case?

Mr. Moate: The cost to public funds need not necessarily be high, because privatised companies will often be the beneficiaries of compulsory purchase. If society is giving compulsory purchase powers to companies that will ultimately obtain profit from the land that is acquired, it is reasonable that we should insist that the vendor be treated generously and fairly. The cost to public funds might be low because it would be passed on to other organisations that will be carrying out the development.

Mr. Frank Haynes: It does not work out like that. I have an interest in road safety. Land was compulsorily purchased in my constituency for road safety improvements. But if the public expenditure of the local authority is being hit by the Government, it is in immediate difficulty in making money available for compensation. That makes it difficult to progress with road safety. The local authority must make available the money to buy land, but it is then clobbered for overspending. I look to the hon. Gentleman to support Labour local authorities which are doing just that.

Mr. Moate: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not advance the proposition that we should not proceed on the grounds of equity because it might marginally increase development costs. If he follows that logic, he will vote against the Bill and the increased home loss payment. The home loss payment will be an expensive proposition, but we all warmly welcome it. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is saying that, at little additional cost to the Government, we should extend the principle to small businesses that have fewer than 20 employees.
We shall have to face up to that proposition when we start building new rail links to the Channel. It is right that the proposed developer should have to bear the costs and pay a little extra compensation to the farmers, small business men and home owners of Kent, who will have to make some sacrifice in the national interest.
I hope that Ministers will accept the principle of new clause 5 and take us further on the road of justice, along which they have started to take us with the increased home loss payment.

Mr. Speed: I support new clause 5, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) gave an excellent exposition. My constituency is not only threatened—as some would put it—by a new high-speed rail link but faced with the building of the missing link in the M20, which will place a number of small businesses and farmers in severe difficulty. The whole point of the home loss payment, which I believe should be extended to small businesses, is that it involves not only the market value of the property but a recognition by society that compulsory purchase entails dissatisfaction, hardship and very real problems and that compensation should therefore be paid over and above the market value of the property taken.
I do not join my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham in welcoming wholeheartedly the setting of the home loss payment at 10 per cent. or a maximum of £15,000. On the Government's own figures in relation to the new council tax, 10 per cent. of residential properties in my constituency are worth £160,000 or more. Most of them are not mansions but comparatively modest, albeit most agreeable, dwellings in the countryside. In practice, the owners of such properties would receive not a 10 per cent. home loss payment but a payment of 7 or 8 per cent. The principle ought always to be the same. It should be recognised that whatever house one lives in, the state, or the new privatised companies, ought to be more generous than has been the case in the past. That is necessary to compensate the owner for the disturbance and problems that he suffers.
Let us be honest about it: at the moment, small businesses—and I accept the definition—farmers and others have problems with the new business rate. In my area, members of that group are not happy. Moreover, for various historical reasons they may be paying more in the south and the midlands than in the north. They may then be clobbered by new rail or road developments, developments by the plcs or whatever. I certainly accept the point that some companies—privatised or otherwise —have used compulsory powers and found that the land or buildings that they have purchased are redundant in terms of their immediate requirement, and that those companies have made a considerable profit on that land or those buildings. The modest proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham goes some way towards dealing with that question.
I would accept the home loss payment for which the Bill provides—10 per cent., and a maximum of £15,000—even though it is less than generous to London, the south-east and other parts of the country where comparable house prices are higher than in the north, Wales or Scotland. Half a loaf is better than no bread, but let us make it three quarters of a loaf by extending this important principle to small businesses, as suggested in the new clause.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: In view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), it seems almost churlish to rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) I do not, of course, disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton about the excellence of our hon. Friend's proposal. However, I come to these matters as something of a veteran. I represented the former constituency of Middleton and Prestwich. Having enjoyed the driving through that constituency of the M62, and having dealt with the spate of claims and difficulties to which it gave rise, I then had the good fortune to be chosen as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden and immediately found myself dealing with the aftermath of the construction of the M11 I found that, although the construction had been completed, the settlement of claims arising from it had by no means been dealt with; it dragged on for a number of years thereafter.
We then had the good fortune to have the decision by the Government to develop Stansted airport, which gave rise to a few more examples of the kind of difficulties that can occur when people are dispossessed. I feel passionately that there is an unjustice here that needs to be given further attention. It is entirely right that the principle that the Government, to their credit, are applying in respect of home loss payments should be extended as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham suggests.
I can recall one example in particular. The owner of a caravan site in my constituency was dispossessed to make way for the expansion of the airport. The British Airports Authority subsequently developed a new caravan site and, after a few years, decided to sell it because the BAA was not in the business of running caravan sites. Had there been adequate compensation in the first place, however, the business man who ran that caravan site in my constituency could simply have carried on his business. That would have been the fair and equitable outcome. At the moment, it seems that our arrangements are not adequate to allow business men a fair crack of the whip.
The question that we should ask ourselves—the question that Ministers should address—is whether a need arises for the sort of payment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. On the basis of my experience in different places, I believe that the answer is most emphatically yes.
I support the argument advanced by several of my hon. Friends about the help that the new clause would give not only to individuals but to the whole process of speeding development. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said in reply to me that it is usually other people who stand in the way of development and that they would not be affected by the proposals. I invite my hon. Friend to consider that, in the case of roads, in particular, it is very much the landowner and the business man who are directly affected. I believe that the proposals would—help in the development of roads and railways—in cases in which, at present, landowners, seeing their business threatened and knowing that they will not be compensated adequately to allow them to continue with their business, dig in their heels and fight the developments rather harder than they might otherwise.
In the end, this is a matter of fairness, and a matter of balance between the need for development and the needs of those who are dispossessed. I do not think that we have matters right at the moment, and I think that the new

clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham would go a substantial way to putting them right.

Mr. Steen: I could not have put it better than my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), whose experience of compulsory purchase orders and the suffering that they cause to people living in the area must be second to none. A number of us feel that the Government have made an enormous stride forward. We should welcome and be grateful for that and recognise that the Government have done a first-rate job in introducing a compensation concept plus something more. That is great news, and the public will welcome it.
The problem is that the Government always say, "We cannot do more," because the Treasury let them go to 10 per cent. or £15,000 and then said, "No more." It is like the chap trying to sell a car who says, " I cannot sell it at that price, I am afraid, because it belongs to my brother-in-law." The Government say, "We cannot extend the concession because the Treasury says that it is not possible."
My concern is not so much about the figures—although I am concerned about the group of people who would benefit—but about the fact that Britain is lagging behind and because our planning system is part of the problem. It is antiquated, slow, bureaucratic and ungenerous. The result is that, instead of developments going through quickly and our getting things done, everything takes too long. By the time an application is granted, the developer may have moved. The building of a road may be slowed up for so long that, by the time it is built, it is the wrong road, or in the wrong place, or too small.

Mr. Vaz: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Local people in my area, too, are concerned because they simply do not know what the result of an inquiry may be, and they do not know because of the tremendous delay. If the element of delay were removed from the system, people would at least be in a position to know whether they would receive compensation and to know the outcome of the appeal. It is the delay that causes anxiety and hardship to so many local people.

7 pm

Mr. Steen: The hon. Member, who served with me on the Standing Committee and is experienced in matters of this kind, makes a valid point. It is uncertainty that leads to distrust, anxiety and, ultimately, a feeling of hostility towards the public authorities. In this country there is far too much hostility to central and local government, which is aggravated by our planning laws and the way we approach compensation when the public authority wants to do something. It is very much the big public body with a club saying to the members of a local community that it will take their land, their farms or their small businesses and pay them the market rate and nothing more. That is no incentive for anyone to co-operate with the public authorities.
The Government have made a very constructive and useful move in saying that they will pay compensation plus. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has said, it is a fine idea, it is most welcome, but it is not quite enough, so can we please extend it a bit so that


people whose farms or businesses are affected get something as well? That is an innocuous, sensible and practical suggestion.
I hope that the Ministers who are dealing with this matter will not use the Treasury argument and that they will not blame the Treasury for the lack of progress in this country. Here is an opportunity to get this country moving again. It is extremely sluggish, and one of the reasons is the planning regime. When a public authority wants to do things, it is too difficult and too slow. With rather more generous compensation, with a slight extension, we can get the country moving again, and I cannot believe that Ministers do not want that to happen.

Mr. Yeo: I am glad to have the chance to reply to this debate, which has been useful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for his support—which was stated in rather more unqualified terms than those used by my other hon. Friends who contributed to the debate—for our improvement to the home loss payment.
My hon. Friend's new clause, as he explained, would provide for an additional amount of compensation to be paid where a small business is acquired compulsorily. This would be a business loss payment broadly comparable to the revised home loss payment scheme for residential acquisitions, but would be subject to the considerably higher ceiling of £25,000. Its basis is slightly different from that for home loss payments in that the payment would be calculated on the total compensation payable for the business rather than the value of the property only. The new clause goes on—perhaps somewhat bravely—to define a small business as one run by someone who, in conjunction with his associates, employs up to 20 people.
I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's evident concern about small businesses affected by compulsory purchase. Clearly, he struck a chord with quite a number of my hon. Friends. The encouragement and protection of small businesses are causes which remain very close to the Government's heart, as the House will, I am sure, recognise from the report entitled "Small Firms in Britain 1991" recently published by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
It goes without saying that compulsory purchase of any property will almost invariably come as an unwelcome shock to those affected. However, on principle, I do not think that I can accept the sort of proposal advocated by my hon. Friend. As we have pointed out many times at earlier stages of the debates on the Bill, home loss payments are made in recognition of the intense personal distress and upheaval which are bound to affect almost anyone who is compulsorily displaced from his home.
Although I would not dispute the possibility that the compulsory purchase of a property occupied by a small business could well give rise to a measure of distress for the owner—or, indeed, for his employees—I find it hard to accept that such distress could match that felt by someone who was forced to leave his home. Indeed, from time to time, small businesses may even gain by moving as a result of a compulsory purchase from a rundown area being redeveloped to, perhaps, a new commercial unit provided on advantageous terms by the local authority.
From the debate, to which I listened carefully, it seemed that a number of my hon. Friends may not be clear about

the extent of existing compensation to small businesses. That compensation is by no means to the value of any property involved.
I should point out that, when a business is compulsorily acquired, the owner is already entitled to receive, in addition to the market value of his interest in the land on which it is situated, full compensation for the disturbance of his business. This will cover all reasonable expenses that are likely to be incurred by the owner in relocating his business to similar replacement premises, including legal costs and compensation for the diminution or loss of goodwill.
It takes into account how the business was run and how it would have fared if there had been no compulsory purchase. It also takes into account the temporary or permanent loss of profits, although, of course, that does not include profits which could arise from a future expansion of the business, but that may, in any case, be within the grasp of the owner. As the new clause acknowledges, someone displaced from the home from which he is running a business would normally be entitled to a home loss payment as well as a disturbing payment. We believe that to be a fair and satisfactory system of compensation.
As I said, my hon. Friend had a stab at defining a small business for the purpose of his provision. I am not sure that his definition is one that would suit everybody. The level of 20 employees seems to me to be an arbitrary one and would be seen as unfair by those businesses with marginally more people working in them.
My hon. Friend referred in particular to the position of farmers, and I know that that is a matter of great concern to him. Generally speaking, an owner-occupier or tenant farmer will receive, besides the market value of his interest in the land acquired, including the value of any potential it may have for future development, a home loss payment, where he has to leave his farmhouse, and also a farm loss payment.
The farm loss payment is based on the average annual profit from the land taken. It is designed to help the farmer take up farming on replacement land, which is probably unfamiliar, and to cover the temporary loss of crop yields during the transition. Paragraph 6 of schedule 13 makes significant improvements to the farm loss payment scheme. I dare say that, as it appears on page 171 of the Bill, my hon. Friend may not have reached it in his study of the document. Nevertheless, those improvements are provided and they extend farm loss payments to tenants for a year, or from year to year, and to cases where only part of a holding is taken.
My other hon. Friends who contributed to the debate were, I think, only reinforcing the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. I have noted the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) for an even higher ceiling on home loss payments. The Bill does, of course, raise the old ceiling very substantially indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) is, as he says, something of an expert on these matters, and I would not deny that from time to time landowners feature among the objectors to proposals for new roads and other such things. But I believe that the evidence of the powers that are held justifies my contention that often the greatest delay is caused by people who do not have a direct financial interest in the matter but have other reasons for advancing their objections.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) will be glad that I have not mentioned the Treasury so far, and I do not intend to do so. However, I should like to deal with the French system, which seems to be so much admired by many of my hon. Friends. Let us take a small farm, one of a size that is not untypical in France but perhaps not quite so typical in some of the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends—a 30-acre farm, the land value of which is, say, about £48,000. The French system provides for a general percentage supplement on top of market value on all claims. In some cases, that supplement can be as high as 25 per cent., but it is confined to the first 100,000 francs—in other words, approximately £10,000. Otherwise the percentage varies from case to case, but the normal percentage is about 10 per cent.
The French system does not reimburse many of the incidental costs which are specificially covered by our provisions—for example, legal and surveying fees. There is no provision for separate home loss or farm loss payments. It is not clear to me that claimants do as well under the French system as my hon. Friends have suggested. However, on the evidence of what they say, it is clear that if we had a system which was much more generous than the French system they would not wish to press their new clause.
Let us return to the example of the 30-acre farm worth £48,000. On the most generous assumption, even if the 25 per cent. figure in the French system were applied to the total value of that farm—I do not think that it would be —there would be an additional £12,000 on top of the £48,000, giving a value of £60,000.
When a 30-acre farm was acquired as a result of the construction of the M25 in 1981, the value of the land taken, including the woodland, was £48,000, but under our system of farm loss payments, an additional £95,000 was paid for injurious affection, severance and loss of sporting rights. A further £18,000 was paid for disturbance, including new signposts, loss of timber, temporary loss of profits, damage to farm buildings, the cost of manure and land drains, reorganisation costs and surveyors' fees. In addition, £15,000 was paid for the value of accommodation works provided by the Department of Transport.
In other words, under the system which is so much admired by some of my hon. Friends, the farmer concerned would have received £48,000 plus £12,000—a total of £60,000. Under the system already in operation in this country, the farmer concerned received a total of £176,000—[Interruption.]Are the noises that I hear coming from some of my hon. Friends indicative of their concern about control of public expenditure?
I am beginning to be persuaded that I should table an amendment to make our system less, rather than more, generous. The point is clearly established that, were we to adopt the type of system that my hon. Friends have cited in support of their argument, we should be treating our farmers and small business men less generously than is the case at present.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the example that the Minister is recounting fairly typical, or is it the best of the last decade?

Mr. Yeo: It is the only one of the last decade for which I have details tonight. It seems clear that we have in place a system that is probably much more generous and more far-reaching in its scope than many hon. Members

appreciate. For the reasons that I have given, it does not seem to us that there is a strong case for giving additional compensation for small businesses or small farmers, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Moate: Hon. Members will have been intrigued by the farm to which the Minister referred and will be wondering whether it is typical. I suspect that my hon. Friend might now be deluged with claims from farmers who feel that they have been treated less favourably by the taxpayer in recent years. He may also find a flood of farmers expecting similarly generous treatment should they lose part of their land to road building or to the proposed high-speed rail link through Kent.
If the Minister is right, perhaps he should welcome the new clause enthusiastically, for he suggested that there would be no cost—indeed, that there would be a profit —to the Treasury. If he does not accept that logic—and he may not—he will perhaps at least accept that the matter should be investigated to see what is the right and fair treatment for farmers. After all, he is suggesting that the French system does not live up to what many of us widely believe it to be. I should be interested to know if what he says is so. Would he be willing to consider carefully figures submitted to him by, say, the NFU, which can no doubt research the matter to discover the correct position?
When referring to the additional sums available to farmers, the Minister suggested that the compensation related in part to profits derived from the farm. That could produce hollow laughter from some farmers right now. They might find it difficult to give evidence of farming profits. It may be that the case that the Minister cited was a one-off instance and that we shall not witness that type of compensation arising again. He should at least respond to an invitation to examine the figures to see whether he is wrong. Is a 110 per cent. payment, with maximum compensation of £25,000, for small farmers more generous? He has really agreed to examine that, because he has conceded the principle.
The Minister congratulated me on my courage in defining small firms. I give credit to the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill, clause 30 of which defines it in the way I have used. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree that there is a legitimate precedent for determining what is and what is not a small firm. Relating that to farming, a farm with 20 employees is reasonably large these days, so it seems that that is not a difficult or unreasonable line to draw.
7.15 pm
My hon. Friend justified his argument that there should be an extra payment to home owners on the grounds of the personal distress that is caused. It is legitimate to argue that, in such cases, there should be generous and fair home loss payments. But he did not argue forcefully that there was a major distinction between the personal distress caused to a home owner and the personal distress caused to a small business man or farmer who loses part or all of his land. The distress must be equally as great.
Hon. Members are right to say that, basically, when society compulsorily acquires land, there should be a generous additional payment to recognise that factor. Whether it is mentioned in terms of distress, disruption or severance in connection with business, an additional payment should be made. That is the principle that we have conceded by the home loss payment. That is why


hon. Members have welcomed the principle of extending that payment. We may say that it does not go far enough, but broadly, the extra £15,000 is warmly welcomed. Exactly the same principle should be applied to small businesses and farmers.
I suspect that this is not one of those evenings when my hon. Friends would wish to press this matter to a Division —[Interruption.]I hear noises coming from Opposition Members. Did we hear from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) an interesting speech from the Labour Front Bench, supporting our case? He has not said a word in the debate. There has been no support from him tonight for small businesses and farmers, yet he is now encouraging us to press the matter to a Division. Where are his troops?

Mr. Soley: I have been so impressed by the compelling case that the hon. Gentleman has been making that my hon. Friends and I have been waiting anxiously to get into the Lobby to vote. The example from France that he gave was excellent, and he is right. They got the French side of the line through quickly because of their compensation system, whereas in this country we do not have such a link. When people come across Europe on the high-speed train, they will transfer at Dover into something resembling Thomas the Tank Engine. That says everything about the kind of system that we have. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he leads us into the Lobby, we shall be with him.

Mr. Moate: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had not made those comments about the contrast between what the traveller will see when he reaches the British Rail side, because, like many others, he is totally underestimating the amount of investment that has gone into providing a high-speed link which, from 1993, will take travellers from Waterloo terminal through to Paris in three hours—[Interruption.] That construction is under way. It is not the high-speed link, but there will be a first-class rail service and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that much has been achieved.
Is the hon. Member for Hammersmith saying that he has more Labour Members ready to vote than the four or five currently in the chamber? If he claims that hordes of Labour supporters will be joining us in the Lobby, he tempts me, and if my hon. Friends feel the same way, I shall be delighted to press the matter to a Division—not because I believe that we can win, but because the message will have got through to the Government that we should be more generous in the compensation we give. By forcing the matter to a vote, we may be starting something, so that sooner rather than later we shall get more generous compensation arrangements in our legislation.

Mr. Soley: I move that the Question be put, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that the debate is coming to a natural conclusion, and I will now put the Question.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 107.

Division No. 146]
[7.18 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beggs, Roy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bellotti, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Battle, John
Benyon, W.





Boateng, Paul
Nellist, Dave


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pike, Peter L.


Cox, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Rathbone, Tim


Dixon, Don
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Ruddock, Joan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sillars, Jim


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Soley, Clive


Grylls, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Haselhurst, Alan
Steen, Anthony


Haynes, Frank
Trimble, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


McCrea, Rev William
Wareing, Robert N.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maginnis, Ken
Wolfson, Mark


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moate, Roger
Mr. Keith Vaz and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Mullin, Chris





NOES


Alexander, Richard
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Amos, Alan
Knowles, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lightbown, David


Ashby, David
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Baldry, Tony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bellingham, Henry
Maclean, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mans, Keith


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Boswell, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Bowis, John
Mills, Iain


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Moss, Malcolm


Brazier, Julian
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Needham, Richard


Browne, John (Winchester)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Budgen, Nicholas
Nicholls, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Page, Richard


Carrington, Matthew
Paice, James


Chapman, Sydney
Patnick, Irvine


Chope, Christopher
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Couchman, James
Powell, William (Corby)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Rhodes James, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Dunn, Bob
Sackville, Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Shaw, David (Dover)


Eggar, Tim
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Shersby, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Sims, Roger


French, Douglas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fry, Peter
Speller, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodlad, Alastair
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hague, William
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Waller, Gary


Hawkins, Christopher
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Warren, Kenneth


Hayward, Robert
Watts, John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Wells, Bowen


Hind, Kenneth
Wilshire, David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wood, Timothy


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Yeo, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Hunter, Andrew



Irvine, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Jack, Michael
Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Janman, Tim



Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 9

STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (No. 2)

`For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted—
(1) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, shall be the starting point for the authority when dealing with such an application and it shall also have regard to any other material considerations".'.—[Mr. Soley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Soley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: new clause 13—Status of the development plan—
`—For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted—
(1) In dealing with such an application the authority shall first consider the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and shall then have regard to any other material considerations.".'

Amendment No. 137, in schedule 3, page 108, line 49,
at end insert
`(11) The provisions of a current and properly constituted local development plan with an approved county structure plan shall prevail over any conflicting provisions or advice set out in planning policy guidance notes which may be issued from time to time by the Department of Environment'.

Mr. Soley: The new clauses will give a much higher status to the development plan. On Second Reading, the Minister announced that the Government had made a welcome conversion and that development should be plan-led rather than market-led. We welcome the Government's conversion. We felt that the Bill was weak in terms of ensuring that the plan was given a high enough status. The Bill ensures that structure and local plans are available throughout the country, but it does not ensure that they are given sufficient priority to guarantee that, when decisions are taken about development, the plan and not the developers' desires comes first.
7.30 pm
We have tabled two new clauses. New clause 9 would insert:
The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, shall be the starting point for the authority".
We included the words "starting point" because they seemed to help the Government out of their problems of definition. We also tabled new clause 13, which is signed by a number of Conservative Members. It goes into more detail and states:
`—For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted—
(1) In dealing with such an application the authority shall first consider the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and shall then have regard to any other material considerations.".'
That is a stronger interpretation than that of new
clause 9.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon.

Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but I missed the last Division. I was in my office, off the main Committee Corridor, and I did not hear a bell. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) did not hear one either. Will the Serjeant at Arms check whether the bells are working properly?

Mr. Roger Gale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in Committee Room 21 on the upper Committee Corridor and heard no bell. It seems that the bells may not be working.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I shall have inquiries made and inform the House of the outcome.

Mr. Soley: I am pleased that the Government have said that, following discussion between spokesmen from the two main parties this afternoon, the Government are to concede to us new clause 13. By any standards, that new clause constitutes one of the most important changes that the Government have made during the Bill's passage, both through this House and the House of Lords. I welcome that concession and look on it favourably.
I can set aside much of the rest of my speech for the moment, although I may seek the leave of the House to catch your attention again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that that will not be necessary and I think it might be easier and save the time of the House if I now make way for the Minister and other hon. Members to address the House so that we may take the matter further.
The commitment that the Government have given today gives a much higher status to the development plan and will go a long way to ensuring that development is plan led. The Bill will still not be the ideal one that the Labour party would have proposed, but it is undoubtedly a significant step forward and one that I welcome.

Mr. Wolfson: If what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has intimated is correct, I greatly welcome the Government's action. Over the past 12 years, I have had much correspondence with, and made many direct representations to, the Ministers' predecessors at the Department of the Environment on the key importance of local planning decisions—which are taken by local authorities with local knowledge and which are responsive to local interests and concerns being upheld on appeal. When such decisions are overturned, it is often a cause of anger, bewilderment and much concern in the local community.
During the past two years, one of the responses that I have received when making representations to the Department of the Environment has been that, where local plans do not exist or are out of date, it makes it difficult for the inspector and the Minister to uphold the local decisions. My local authority has been pressed by me into bringing its local plans up to date. It has also done so partly of its own volition. Therefore, I have always believed that it is important to give the maximum weight to the local plan in planning decisions, and I welcome both the new clauses. I am delighted if the Minister is to concede them.

Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend the Minister and one or two of my hon. Friends will know that I have taken a considerable interest in the planning process in the past few years. My attention was drawn to the subject by a substantial body of public feeling in my constituency and those of many of my hon. Friends. At least 100 of them


have spoken of the almost unregulated way in which speculative housing was being permitted under our planning legislation. It swiftly became apparent that, to be constructive, I would have to become, if not expert, a great deal more knowledgeable on planning laws. Thanks to the able assistance of many people, I feel that my appreciation of the subject has improved. My conclusion has to be that the planning laws are a devious and elaborate device for the Government to impose their decisions on the population in an expensive, laborious and delaying manner, and without the due good effect of consulting local opinion, which is what we want.
When the Bill was first thought about two or three years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the then Secretary of State, intimated that he would abolis county structure plans. I shall not enter into a debate about the future of counties, because that is another matter, but it was more than 10 years before the majority of our counties had evolved proper structure plans. In my county of Avon, the structure plan was once again being amended recently. I do not complain about that, but to say that the county structure plan system had failed before the last of the babies were even born was a premature destruction of the theory—and I was totally opposed to that.
We had a debate on that subject, and my hon. Friend the member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and others made it clear that we did not think that it was a good idea. Therefore, when the Bill was presented without such a proposal, we were all pleased. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
We want the system to be plan-led…We want the district plan to be the indicator—the signal—of what is permitted development and the market must respond to the local plan."—[Official Report, 12 March 1991; Vol. 187 c. 823.]
In my constituency during the past two years there have been at least two substantial planning proposals—I can think of three, and there are probably many more—which fall well outside the structure plan. However, the proposals appeal to my district council and the planning authority for commercial and other perfectly good reasons, and so were given a "first reading" by the district council. The Minister, in my view rightly, called in both those cases and the plans have either been changed or the developers have withdrawn the applications. The system must work; it is no good having all the bureaucracy if we do not get a sensible result. Amendment No. 137 rightly gives priority to the local plan. On Second Reading and in Committee, there was much talk about the merits of the local plan. I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will ensure that henceforth the local plan matters.
The Minister's first job is to educate local councillors in the planning law—just as I had to learn more about the laws, the councillors will have to learn more about what they mean—and to emphasise again that, in inspectors' decisions confirmed by the Minister, the local development plan is the one that matters. It does not take much imagination to understand the expense and time involved in preparing detailed local plans. It is tiresome for a councillor, because he has to think into the future, make projections and consider what his district will look like. Once that has been done, Ministers must, for goodness' sake, uphold the decisions.
I am sorry to say that there is a fairly lengthy history of inspectors' decisions not upholding local plans. We come to the wretched intervention of central Government through the planning policy guidance notes and circulars which the courts have consistently regarded as overriding the local arguments and local opinion. I had hoped that the Bill would deal with that problem, but it has not. We are left with basically the same structure and with a mass of complicated guidance notes which are lengthy and legalistic—they have to be if they are to be used as the basis of planning decisions. More in sorrow than in anger, I must say that I believe that the Bill has missed an opportunity.
We strongly support our planning laws. I say "we" because I include my hon. Friends. The country should be grateful for the basic framework of our planning laws because they have saved us from many disasters. One has only to consider parts of America to realise how disastrous a lack of constraint can be. However, we have got into difficulties. We should have the wit and competence to get ourselves out, and I am sorry that we have not done so. However, a road lies through the local development plans. Ministers have considerable administrative capacity and enormous discretion in planning matters, probably more than in any other local framework, and I hope that the Minister will use his administrative capacity. I know that he thinks a great deal about the issues, and that he is sympathetic to what we are saying. I hope that, in due course, the administration of our planning laws will be satisfactory.
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) which, to some extent, reflects what I am saying. If by any mischance he became the Minister, I hope that he would take the same good advice.

Mr. Steen: New clause 13 and amendment No. 137 are very important and I hope that the Minister will say something more helpful than what was said in Committee.
Some 10 to 20 per cent. of the country is covered by local plans—up-to-date, valid plans which govern the whole planning regime in a district. The remaining 80 per cent. of the country—I am taking a generous view, because it may be as much as 90 per cent.—does not have up-to-date valid local plans. That means that there is no consistency in planning: when one area that has no local plan decides against something and the matter goes to appeal, there is no local plan for the inspector to follow, so a different picture emerges. In one area, an inspector will find in favour of something that he finds against in another area.
Over the years, the number of appeals has increased, as will the number of inspectors. I recently asked a parliamentary question and was told that more money was being spent on planning inspectors because there were more appeals. Ultimately, the Bill will make it mandatory for every area to be covered by local plans. That will mean that, in every area, the local district council will go through the motions of discussions with parish and church councils, with neighbourhoods and with individuals. There will be local meetings at which everyone can have some input, which is to be welcomed. I commend the Government for that imaginative and constructive step, because it is the right approach.
In five years, every part of Britain will be covered by an up-to-date local plan approved by the Secretary of State. It will be a current local plan in a five-year cycle. Every five


years,the plans will be brought up to date, and in every local plan every piece of land will be designated for some purpose. There will be a development area for housing; there will be areas for agriculture, leisure and recreation, and so on. I think that, in five to 10 years' time, every part of the country will have a local plan.
7.45 pm
I am fortunate, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), because my council has a valid local plan. Indeed, we have five valid local plans which are excellent and we are updating them. There are meetings in every town and village to discuss what they should contain. However, the critical issue is that, if there is a valid local plan—or five local plans, as in South Hams—what happens when a planning applicant wants to go to appeal? The inspector who is appointed by the Secretary of State considers not only the local plan, but what is known as the PPG or planning policy guidance issued by the Department. There is often a conflict because the inspector sees the Government's PPG issued by the Department and the valid local plan—on which there has been proper consultation—with the Secretary of State's imprimatur. How does he decide how to proceed? He does not. One inspector will decide to follow the PPG and another will decide to follow the local valid plans.
New clause 13 states:
In dealing with such an application the local authority shall first consider the provisions of the development plan.
Although that is welcome, it is hardly a major victory because it does not deal with the problem of the PPG issued by the Government. The clause states merely that the local authority should first consider the provisions of the development plan
so far as material to the application".
That is all very well—the local authority will say that it first considered the plan and then it will either reject or approve the application. If the local authority says that it will reject the application because the local plan says that it should not be approved, and it has first considered the provisions of the plan according to new clause 13, it will say that the planning application should not be approved. However, the application may then go to appeal and the planning inspector considers it. He would need amendment No. 137, which states:
The provisions of a current and properly constituted local development plan with an approved county structure plan shall prevail over any conflicting provisions or advice set out in planning policy guidance notes which may be issued from time to time by the Department of the Environment.
What is the point of going through the process in every district, with millions of pounds being spent and with hundreds of officials involved, if, on appeal, there is no clarity about whether the planning policy guidance note of the Secretary of State or the local plan carries sway? I believe that it must be the local plan. If not, what is the point of having a local plan? Local plans set the framework in which local decisions are taken. If, on appeal, the Secretary of State says that the planning policy guidance note says something slightly different and that he will follow that, it makes nonsense of the local plan. That is why amendment No. 137 is so important.
A former Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) answered a question that I put to him. I asked whether, if there was a local plan that said there was enough housing, the planning inspector would

be bound to follow the local plan. My right hon. Friend said that that was true. The Bill does not make it clear whether the planning policy guidance notes of the Secretary of State or the local district plan, approved by the county and by the Secretary of State, are to be followed.
New clause 13, although a welcome move in the right direction, is a bit of a cop-out. It is, in effect, a non-clause. It is perfectly all right to say that the first consideration should be the local plan, but that would make no difference ultimately. On appeal, there is no clarity about what should happen and that is why I believe that amendment No. 137 is so important.

Sir Anthony Durant: I am following my hon. Friend's arguments closely and I have great sympathy with them. There is a problem in my constituency. There are local plans in my area, but a development is proposed on the edge of two local districts. There is a conflict between the developer on one side and the developer on the other side. One district says that it must have the development, but the other says that it does not want it. There is a major problem in trying to get a third bridge across the River Thames. We cannot get a third bridge across the Thames because Oxfordshire will not allow it to land. We even have a developer who is prepared to pay for the bridge, but he cannot find anywhere for it to land on the other side of the river. How does one deal with such a problem?

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend always asks good questions. It is always a pleasure to see him in his own or anyone else's place. His point is not entirely relevant to my argument, although I think that I can give him an answer. If there is a conflict between two local plans—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is the better person to give an answer, but I am acting as the Minister in this case—

Mr. Wiggin: And very well too.

Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend.
If there is a conflict between two local plans, the inspector will have to decide which is right. The inspector should get cracking, because one cannot have a bridge that does not land on the other side. However, that does not affect the question whether the Government's PPGs conflict with the local plan. The PPGs are generic, whereas the local plans are detailed. In this case, if one cannot get the bridge anywhere, the local authority would appeal to the Secretary of State and the inspector would decide. That would not necessarily conflict with the PPGs. If it did, the inspector might either approve the scheme or not. We need clarity on whether preference is given to the PPGs or to the local plan. What weight does the inspector give to local plans and to the PPG?
I could give examples in my constituency where decisions have been wholly inconsistent with another decision taken a year later. I am sure that all hon. Members will have experience, as I have, of applications being made three times for the same development. The first inspector says one thing, the second says something else and the third says something else again. The problem is that there is no clarity from the Department of the Environment about whether the PPGs or the local plans take precedence.

Mr. Soley: Regional government in this country would help to resolve problems such as the bridge that goes nowhere. It would not solve them, but it would help.
The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point about amendment No. 137. We would not legislate in a confused way if we were in government. The PPGs may not necessarily be in conflict with the plan and the number of cases such as the hon. Gentleman has described may be limited, and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to play down too much the importance of new clause 13, although I must say that he is on the right lines. When we are in government and legislation is more plan-centred, I am sure that we shall be able to deliver some certainty on the issue, which he will welcome. Given his revolutionary views on planning, I imagine that it is only a matter of time before the hon. Gentleman crosses the Floor of the House. I am sure that many of his hon. Friends would also welcome some certainty.

Mr. Steen: I cannot wait for the hon. Gentleman to go into government. I will be a very old man by then.
It is worth reminding the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) who is unable to be here today, asked a telling question on 20 January 1988. It was similar to that asked by the late Member for Mid-Staffordshire, Mr. Heddle. He asked the Secretary of State when he would be
publishing his conclusions on the draft statement of planning policy on large out-of-town shopping centres.
The Minister of State gave an interesting answer. He said:
My right hon. Friend is publishing today two new series of guidance notes. Planning policy guidance notes (PPG) will provide guidance on general and specific aspects of planning policy, and minerals planning guidance notes (MPG) will give advice on the control of minerals development.
PPGs and MPGs aim to provide concise and practical guidance on planning policies in a clearer and more accessible form than in departmental circulars, the earlier series of development control policy notes (DCPNs), and other statements. In future, advice on legislation and procedures will be given in departmental circulars, while PPGs and MPGs will be the main source of policy guidance on planning matters.
In most cases the content of the new notes will be based on extant circulars and DCPNs. An index of all the relevant circulars is also being published today—in fulfilment of an undertaking in response to the fifth report, Session 1985–86, of the Environment Committee in the last Parliament. Unless otherwise stated in the PPGs and the MPGs, those circulars remain extant for the time being, but the need to retain them will be reviewed in the light of experience with PPGs and MPGs. DCPNs are now being withdrawn to the extent indicated in the relevant PPGs."—[Official Report, 20 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 745.]
I am sure that, although you do not have the script in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will understand that the answer was not very clear. If it was not clear in 1988, how can a planning inspector in 1991, faced with a local plan on the one hand and a PPG on the other, work out what he should do? Amendment No. 137 says that the local plan, if properly constituted,
shall prevail over any conflicting provision…set out in planning policy guidance notes".
There must be some clarity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not fudge that issue when he answers, which I am giving him the immediate opportunity to do.

Sir George Young: This has been a useful debate about the role of the district plan. Opposition and Conservative Members have urged me to raise the profile and credibility of the district plan within the planning system. I hope to be able to say something helpful in a moment.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) implied that if we accepted new clause 13, it would be a giant step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said that the new clause did not really matter. The House will have to decide which of the two is right
.
In reply to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), I must say that, if we are to enhance the credibility of the district plan, it must be up to date. That is an important ingredient. If one faces out-of-date plans, it is difficult to say that they should be the starting point or the first consideration. District plans must be consistent with national guidance. One cannot have a series of district plans that have somehow opted out of the national planning system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) will not expect me fully to subscribe to his rather critical analysis of the planning system and to his view of the somewhat sinister motives of planning Ministers. However, I understand the import of his point that more importance should be given to the district plan if one has gone through all the procedures.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said that every local plan has to be approved by the Secretary of State. He is not quite right. Almost all such plans are now, and will still be when the Bill is enacted, adopted by the planning authority. In future, the structure plan will also be adopted by the county unless the Secretary of State calls it in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) mentioned the problem of the bridge. If there was a conflict between two district plans, I hope that the county structure plan would pick up the fact that there was some incompatibility and would refuse to validate them. If two different counties were involved, I hope that someone in my Department would notice that there was a certain inconsistency in the approach to river crossings.

8 pm

Mr. Wiggin: I am sorry if my hon. Friend felt that I was implying that his activities were sinister. That is certainly not what I had in mind. But I am sure that he will be the first to agree that the Bill gives him substantial powers. I fully recognise that the Government should and must have a hand in the general structure planning of the nation. That is completely right. I do not understand why he is opting out of giving his approval to the structure and district plans, because that is one way in which the Government could organise the bureaucracy.

Sir George Young: If we are not happy with them, we will call them in. The fact that we do not and that we allow them to be self-approved means that we have, in effect, validated them.
Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the local planning authority considering a planning application to have regard to the provisions of the development plan in so far as they are material to the application and to any other material considerations.
The intention of clauses 9 and 13 is to ensure that the local planning authority starts its consideration of the application by looking at the development plan. Having established that position, the authority will turn to the other material considerations.
On Second Reading, I said that we wanted the development system to be plan led and that the market


should respond to the signals given in the development plan. That has always been the fundamental principal underpinning the planning system.
If we are to go down the road of new clause 13, it is important that the development plans are up to date. But it would be wrong, within the planning law framework that has survived intact for more than 40 years, to change the status of a plan into a prescriptive document. We do not operate zoning mechanisms such as are found across the Atlantic. In our system, it is important that each planning application should continue to be considered on its merits and that all the material considerations should be weighed in the balance in reaching development control decisions.
Amendment No. 137 seeks to affect the weight attached to development plans in planning decisions. It would allow structure and local plan policies to prevail over conflicting national and regional guidance set down by the Secretary of State in his planning policy guidance notes.

Mr. Steen: That is correct. It would affect the balance. But then what is the point of having local plans?

Sir George Young: If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument, I hope to persuade him that the conflict that he describes will not arise in quite the way that he envisages.
Just as we have made provision to ensure that consistency between structure plans and local plans is maintained when structure plans are updated, so it is right that we should expect planning decisions to reflect the most recent and up-to-date guidance issued at national and regional level. That must be done by properly weighing all the material considerations and taking everything that is relevant into account.
The circumstances envisaged by the amendment and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams should not arise. Through national planning guidance, the Secretary of State aims to ensure consistency between planning at the local level and the changing requirements of national policies. The regional guidance ensures consistency on broad cross-border issues that are beyond the scope of individual structure plans.
At the point when a new up-to-date development plan comes into force, all the relevant national policies should already have been taken into account. When new national or regional policies subsequently emerge that are not in line with the plan content, it is the plan that should be regarded as out of date in that respect. The planning system will not serve us well if those new policies are to be disregarded, because they could not have been taken into account in the earlier plan preparation. Therefore, I cannot agree that amendment No. 137 is either necessary or desirable.
However, I have been looking at new clauses 9 and 13 and I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced this evening, particularly by my hon. Friends. This is not the first time that we have debated the significance and status of the development plan in considering planning applications. I recognise the concern that has been expressed. It may not be enough for us to use non-statutory guidance to emphasise that we are operating a plan-led system. Given the procedures that have to be gone through to prepare, to consult and to secure agreement for a district plan, I understand the force of the argument that we have heard this evening that the plan

should be the starting point or the first consideration when one looks at the planning application. I therefore propose to concede new clause 13 when the time comes, but to resist new clause 9.
However, both new clauses are defective in that they remove the current requirement for the local planning authority to have regard to the development plan. They would also cast doubt on the way in which, for example, enforcement decisions are taken where the same wording as section 70(2) appears. I readily accept that those promoting the new clause do not intend either to downgrade the plan or to cast doubt on other procedures. Their intention is exactly the opposite.
We shall therefore need to bring forward further amendments to the new clause in another place to achieve the effect desired by its promoters. We must be careful in our amendment not to remove the flexibility in our system that allows the weights to be attached to the various considerations to be determined by the relevance and significance of those considerations.
I sympathise with all the objectives of all the hon. Members who have spoken today. The Government want the weight given to the development plan increased. The Bill will do that by ensuring that we have all the mechanisms in place to provide a comprehensive, relevant and up-to-date development plan system.

Mr. Bellotti: If you place more importance on the development plan and if, as time goes on, development or local plans cover more and more of the country, will that lead to the Department turning down more and more appeals? In particular, on this historic day when we have had the launch in Birmingham of the United Kingdom forum for young people and gambling—it is a fact that between 1984 and 1989 two thirds of all appeals made on behalf of amusement arcade owners were upheld by the Department—do you think that we can in future look forward to fewer appeals being upheld and that that forum can look forward to a happier time for young people?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the convention of the House to refer to hon. Members in the third person.

Mr. Bellotti: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir George Young: I do not want to be drawn into a rather narrow debate about amusement arcades, but I hope that we will have fewer appeals as a result of there being more confidence in the local district plan. If one has local up-to-date plans covering the whole country, there will be less need for appeals. Where that exists, it may be that there is less need for the Secretary of State to intervene. I want local plans to have more credibility and the decisions to be devolved down to local authorities. I do not want my Department to have to resolve on appeal a lot of decisions that could best be taken locally.
New clause 13, suitably amended, may help all those using the planning Acts by ensuring that the right balance between the development plan and other material considerations, including national guidance, is struck.

Mr. Steen: Let me be clear. There is a local plan which is approved by the county and the district which starts on day one and lasts for five years. During those five years, the Department of the Environment will be issuing PPGs which are sent both to the district council and to the planning inspectors. If there is an appeal from the local plan to a planning inspector, he will look at the local plan


but will have to have first regard to any new PPG, which therefore will affect the credibility of that local plan and it will constantly be brought to a different stage by the Government introducing PPGs. The PPGs will take precedence.

Sir George Young: If national policy is changed after the preparation and adoption of the district plan, and if Parliament approves a change in national priorities, yes, the PPGs will then override a local plan. Where there are no such changes in national policy, on the scenario that I have just outlined, the local plan would be the starting point. At the end of the day, Parliament must prevail. It would be wrong for a local district plan prepared before national policy had been changed to be paramount in the circumstances that I described.

Mr. Bob Cryer: When amendments are considered in another place, would it not be helpful to propose one to clause 13, to require that planning policy guidance notes take the form of statutory instruments? The Minister is saying that policy can be changed without Parliament being responsible or anything being brought before it. The PPGs are simply guidance notes issued by the Department without any scrutiny. If the Minister wants to keep the relationship between district plans and the PPGs, he could surely invoke Parliament's support by abandoning the quasi-legislative status of PPGs and introducing statutory instruments, so that, if right hon and hon. Members believe that requirements are being changed surreptitiously, they can have an opportunity to scrutinise them by putting down a prayer.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and wide-ranging point. He wants to change the way that the planning system operates by submitting the PPGs to parliamentary approval.

Mr. Wiggin: What a good idea.

Sir George Young: Whether or not it is a good idea is beside the point. That is certainly not the proposition before the House. If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had been more on the ball, he might have been able to table an amendment that would have done just that.

Mr. Cryer: I was waiting for the Bill to be considered in another place.

Sir George Young: The Bill has already been to another place, and the hon. Gentleman may find it difficult at this stage to do as he wishes. I must make it clear that the Government have no plans to change the present procedure. We have always regarded the development plan as important, but circular 14/85 appeared to downgrade it by referring to it as only one of the material considerations. Those days are well behind us. Today's debate should leave no doubt about the importance of the plan-led approach. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Member for Hammersmith to withdraw new clause 9, and the House to assent to new clause 13, when the time comes for it formally to be moved.

Mr. Soley: With the permission of the House, I intend to withdraw new clause 9, on the understanding that the

Government will legislate according to the same principles when the Bill returns to another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 10

EXPLANATION OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION

`The local planning authority shall provide an explanation in writing of why it does not intend to take enforcement action if it receives a written request from any person who considers that there has been a breach of planning control.'.—[Mr. Soley. I

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Soley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: new clause 11—Annual review of enforcement provisions—
`—Every local authority shall include a review of its use of the enforcement provisions contained in the principal Act on the agenda of a full council meeting at least once a year'.'
Amendment No. 108, in clause 5, page 7, line 3, after
`(1)',insert
`Without prejudice to the generality of section (Explanation of enforcement action) below'.
Amendment No. 109, in clause 10, page 14, line 44, at end insert—
`(6A) Where the local planning authority refuse an application but do not take enforcement action it shall give to any person who submits a written request an explanation in writing of why the authority does not intend to take such action.'.

Mr. Soley: New clause 10 addresses the question of enforcement. We argued on Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill is weak on enforcement, and we touched on that aspect also when debating the first group of amendments today, when a number of Conservative Members and my hon. Friends confessed concern that a local authority would be unable to enforce a plan.
We take the view that there is a need to impose a general duty of enforcement so that a local authority would have to enforce a plan, as well as be given the power to grant retrospective planning permission, to deal with exceptional cases, to avoid making the system too bureaucratic and rigid.
The Government chose to resist that proposal, so we have produced three new clauses. New clause 10 states that the local authority must give an explanation in writing as to why it does not intend to take enforcement action, and new clause 11 requires that every local authority should include a review of its use of the enforcement procedure contained in the principal Act on the agenda of a full council meeting at least once a year. Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 give substance to those arguments.
8.15 pm
The issue was spelt out in the Carnwath report, which drew attention to a survey by Jowell and Millichap, which showed that between 75 and 80 per cent. of enforcement actions were initiated by local individuals, parish councils, or local interest groups. That clearly showed that enforcement is not only of concern to local people but is something that local authorities are not willing or able effectively to address. There must be a way of insisting that a local council, as the planning authority, pays attention to the desire of local people to see planning controls enforced.
As the Government have rejected a wider and more appropriate provision, new clause 10 would at least allow a member of the public to write to a local authority asking why it had not used its enforcement powers in a particular case. That might act as something of a deterrent, and would force the authority to provide an explanation in writing, which could then be made public, taken to a local councillor, and debated in the usual democratic way.
Under new clause 11, a council would have to debate annually in full council the enforcement action that it has taken. That would provide an additional incentive to ensure that enforcement powers were taken seriously.
In Committee, and to some extent on Second Reading, great play was made of the ability of local authorities to use their enforcement powers more than they do. At least, that was the Government's view. However, we have heard today from a number of Conservative Back-Benchers that a local authority often feels helpless. One reason why planning officers wanted to introduce the criminalisation clause that would make it possible to invoke criminal law against a developer who had done something without planning permission was that their hands are tied. I regret that the Government have chosen not to take the wider and more effective approach that we wanted and proposed in Committee, but we submit the alternative, albeit weaker, proposals for the House to consider.

Mr. Vaz: Enforcement is perhaps the most important aspect of the Bill. Although the Committee, on which I served, proceeded on the basis of consensus—apart from one or two divisions on hedgerows—we feel that the Bill should be stronger and tougher, and that is particularly important in respect of enforcement.
I will mention a number of local issues that are directly related to the sentiments behind new clause 10. They concern developers who breached planning controls, and who got away with it simply because the local authority did not act quickly enough to ensure that those breaches were brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities. There is a feeling in my own constituency that the area has become a developer's paradise. Any piece of land that becomes available is snapped up for housing development.
In some cases, developers have acted in an irrational and unacceptable way. One such developer is Jelson's. It builds in different parts of the country, but has developed a lot of properties in Leicestershire. Jelson's bought bits of gardens in a part of my constituency described as Humberstone village. The firm would approach local residents and buy up bits of their gardens that were near the main road. When they had acquired enough, they would apply for planning permission to develop the area.
Exactly a year ago, Jelson's applied for planning permission to build a number of houses. The local authority turned down its application. In breach of the request of the local authority and local residents, the developers then demolished the area. They knew very well that an essential part of the local people's argument would be that the land should be used as a wildlife sanctuary, but, disregarding the direct wishes of those people, they proceeded to act in a cavalier manner.
A similar example involves Neal Brothers, another firm in my constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member, sought to rehearse a catalogue of

alleged breaches of planning consent in his constituency, we should be here for a very long time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep his remarks brief.

Mr. Vaz: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to give the details of every breach of planning consent; if I did, I should be here all night, and I am sure that hon. Members will want to rush off to their television sets at 10 pm to learn the result of the Monmouth by-election. I merely wish to give one or two examples—as I said at the outset—of planning breaches, and of the time that it has taken for local authorities to act effectively.
In the case of Neal Brothers—which involved noise nuisance in the Prestwell road area of my constituency—it took the local authority many months to serve proper notices. It also took many requests from me, and from local councillors, to ensure that meetings took place with the director of planning and other officers. New clause 10 seeks to ensure that local authorities make local people aware of precisely what is happening. If people received letters explaining how long the procedures would take, that would go a long way towards reassuring them about the need for effective planning control.
Although the Government have strengthened the planning legislation and enforcement action procedures in the Bill—I am delighted that they have done so—and although we understand the jargon behind that legislation, ordinary local residents are still not aware of What is involved. That is why the explanation suggested in new clause 10 is necessary.
Finally, let me mention the case of Mr. Dawes—not one of my constituents—who lives in Tandridge, Surrey. I was not able to discover the identity of his Member of Parliament because his letter has only just arrived. The letter told me of a development in which the developers had breached planning control: heavy lorries were arriving at 1 am, and residents were arrested when they protested. Mr. Dawes says that Parliament must ensure that local authorities have powers to bring such people to book, so that local residents—the same applies to residents of my constituency, and of all constituencies—can live peacefully within the law.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Given that new clause 10 is, as far as I know, the only new clause that deals with enforcement action, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State a question. I hope that that will be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try hard not to embark on a catalogue of planning cases in my constituency. I shall allude—briefly—to only one.
In his letter of 13 May to me, my hon. Friend referred to a meeting between his officials and representatives of the District Planning Officers Society which took place in Bristol on 8 April. Among other things, they discussed enforcement, and, in particular, clause 3. The society's representatives asked whether the Bill could be amended to enable a mandatory injunction to be provided by the High Court in response to an actual or threatened breach of planning control.
I understand that the officials said that they would consult the Lord Chancellor's Department, and that the Government have subsequently decided that the courts should not become involved in the detailed business of remedying breaches of planning control that should


properly remain the responsibility of the planning authorities. As clause 3 stands, the court is enabled only to restrain a breach of planning control.
My hon. Friend said that, in his view, the existing powers under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, taken together with the provisions in clause 3, gave authorities the range of injunctive powers that they were likely to need. If section 222 exists as a means of seeking remedial action, perhaps my right hon. Friend—I mean my hon. Friend; I have promoted him terribly quickly, but I am sure that it will come to him some day soon—will tell us why he thinks that circumstances like those at Gladwish farm, to which I referred on Second Reading, have arisen.
Does my hon. Friend feel that the Wealden and Rother district councils could have done something that they did not do, given the powers conferred by the 1972 Act? Did they miss that opportunity? If not, can my hon. Friend explain why they have not been able to prevent the sprouting, unsightly development at Gladwish farm? I merely seek clarification: I am not an expert, and nor, I suspect, are most members of the public. I am sure that, when they see such unsightly developments, the public feel a strong desire to know what steps can be taken by planning authorities—and should be taken, if they are on the statute book.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not wish to detain the House for long. I support the amendment, and press the Government not to reply that it would be "good practice" for local authorities to give writen explanations. I want them to accept that that is really necessary.
Since I began to represent the Denton part of my constituency, a fair number of constituents have come to tell me about planning disputes with their neighbours. My heart sinks when a constituent comes to me with such a story; it sinks even more when, as I show that constituent out, the next in the queue tells me firmly that he has come to complain about that constituent. I do not know whether Denton is particularly odd in this respect, but I do not seem to have had the same experience in the Stockport part of my constituency.
I have considerable sympathy for the planning officer who is called in because of a dispute between neighbours that involves a planning matter. Nice, reasonable people suddenly turn into completely unreasonable people when they are involved in such disputes. I get the impression that, on occasion, planning officers—certainly those in Tameside, who are responsible for the Denton area—who see people behaving in a way that they consider unreasonable think that the simplest option is to put their problems at the bottom of the pile, and hope that they will go away. In my experience, that is the worst way to resolve such disputes. In most cases, people must go on living next to each other, and such disputes should be concluded as quickly as possible.
One neighbour may hope, and go on hoping, that the local authority will take enforcement action. The local authority may know that perhaps it should take action against the other neighbour but hopes that the matter will go away without it doing so. That is a recipe for the conflict to continue festering between the neighbours. The neighbours then involve more and more people in their dispute.
It would be far better for the planning officer to examine the case and decide whether a breach has taken place and action needs to be taken. He should make a decision either to take action or state that although technically a breach has taken place, it is not considered sufficiently significant to require enforcement action. I press the Minister to make it clear that local authorities should not duck their responsibility. They should be required to give clear, written answers. They should state either that they intend to take enforcement action or that they do not. They should get on with resolving the matter rather than hoping that, if a long time passes, disputes between neighbours over planning matters will disappear. In my experience, they do not disappear; they simply get worse.

Mr. Yeo: I shall deal with the debate in two parts. First, I shall deal with amendments Nos. 108 and 109 and new clause 10 together; then I shall come on to new clause 11.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 and new clause 10 would require the local planning authority to reply in writing to any written request that the authority may receive from a person who thinks that there has been a breach of planning control, to explain why it does not intend to take enforcement action. That would include any case where the authority has refused to grant a lawful development certificate, under the new section 191 contained in clause 10, in respect of an existing use.
I appreciate that the amendments are inspired by good intentions. We are all batting in the same direction. We accept that the citizen is entitled to know why local government decisions are taken. Indeed, we are very much in favour of the maximum amount of accountability. However, we cannot accept the amendments and new clause.
It is hard to imagine the circumstances in which a local planning authority would deliberately refuse to reply in writing to any reasonable written request for information about an enforcement decision. The sole exception might be the persistent, frivolous or busy-bodying correspondent—with which I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar—whose object is to create difficulties for the authority or for the owner or occupier of a site who may be falsely accused of a breach of control.
We naturally agree that all councils should respond helpfully and promptly to all requests for information about how they carry out any of their functions, not only in planning matters, but it is unnecessary to introduce a statutory requirement specifically singling out their planning enforcement activities. If any request for information is made by a member of the public, or any amenity or civic organisation, it is up to the authority to respond, to the satisfaction of the people it represents, whatever the inquiry may be.

Mr. Vaz: Does not the Minister feel that the sentiments behind the new clause square with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister about the need for a citizens' charter giving people new rights in their dealings with local authorities?

Mr. Yeo: No, I do not. As I have just said, I believe that the majority of local authorities will respond helpfully and courteously to reasonable written requests for information about the reasons for planning decisions. I am aware from


my experience in my constituency and from discussions on planning issues with hon. Members from both sides of the House that planning issues tend to attract an element of people who are somewhat fanatical. Such people continue to correspond long after issues have been closed beyond any possible further consideration. To lay a statutory duty on the local authority, as the new clause seeks to do, would be an onerous requirement.

Mr. Soley: We all know of cases such as the Minister is thinking of, but his argument is not a good one. The new clause simply says that a reason must be given in writing. Once the local authority had given a reason in writing, it would not be required to respond to every subsequent letter. It would merely be required to make the reason clear on one occasion.

Mr. Yeo: That would be helpful in respect of repetitive requests from the same individual, but many planning issues are the subject of petitions. The availability of word processors and the ease with which circular letters can be signed may mean that hundreds, if not thousands, of requests could be made for a reason for a single decision.

Mr. Vaz: What about the rights of citizens?

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asks from a sedentary position about the rights of citizens. If an inquirer is dissatisfied with the response from the local authority or cannot obtain a reply, he or she can pursue that request with an elected representative such as a councillor or, indeed, a Member of Parliament. Alternatively, if the inquirer believes that the authority's inaction amounts to maladministration, he can arrange to have the case referred to the Commissioner for Local Administration.

Mr. Vaz: That is the whole point. To refer the matter to the ombudsman takes such a long time. However, if the authority had a statutory obligation to reply to a citizen who wrote to request an explanation, the matter could be dealt with quickly. The other avenues that the Minister suggests would add to the delay. One of the objectives of hon. Members on both sides of the House is to reduce the delays inherent in the planning legislation.

Mr. Yeo: I do not suggest that everyone should immediately have recourse to the local government ombudsman. However, there are several avenues for taking action of varying degrees of severity and importance. They are open to anyone who feels that the local authority is not responding in a helpful or responsible manner. There have been cases in which the local ombudsman has been willing to criticise maladministration in planning enforcement matters. In some cases, financial compensation has been recommended for people who suffered injustice as a result of a local authority's inaction.
It is clear from what I have said that the Government believe that the amendments are unnecessary, and they might result in unprofitable use of the scarce resources of planning authorities. Indeed, in earlier debates today and in Committee, anxieties were expressed by both Conservative and Opposition Members that local authorities are in some cases fully stretched by their enforcement role. Therefore, we must be mindful of the need to avoid imposing any unnecessary burdens on them.

Local authorities might have to divert resources which would have been more effectively used for direct enforcement action.
We do not have evidence that councils are reluctant or refuse to explain why they decided not to take enforcement action. Needless to say, that does not imply that the explanation given always satisfies the person who seeks it. I hope that, for the reasons that I have given, the Opposition will consider it right to withdraw their amendment so that we can leave the matter to the sense of the elected members and the officers of the authority involved.
New clause 11 would require the full council of every local planning authority, at least once a year, to review the way in which the authority exercises the enforcement provisions in part VII of the 1990 Act, as they will be amended by the Bill.
We appreciate that this amendment is intended to keep local authorities on their toes in enforcement matters—an objective that we share. We accept that councils ought to monitor their procedures for taking planning enforcement action, but we believe that councils should exercise discretion about how best to do so. We do not believe that Parliament should impose on every local authority the statutory extra burden that the amendment involves.
There is apparently no good reason for singling out the planning enforcement provisions in this way and treating them differently from other local government functions. Nor is it essential, or appropriate, for the full council to conduct the proposed review. The council's planning committee, which has the day-to-day experience, might be a better review mechanism. If it is felt that some overview is needed, the council's policy and resources committee might be as well suited to the task, especially if priority in the use of scarce materials is one of the factors to be taken into consideration.
The House will know that all councils have adequate powers under the Local Government Act 1972 to delegate powers to officers. It seems unnecessary to impose a further statutory duty on authorities, when members or officers can already carry out regular reviews of their functions to achieve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. There are already strong financial pressures on councils to operate efficiently and to be accountable to their electorate.
During discussion of some of the enforcement amendments in Standing Committee, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith referred, I undertook that we would issue a planning policy guidance note about enforcement policy. We aim to issue this note after consultation on a draft to coincide with the commencement of the new enforcement powers in clauses 1 to 11. This will give local authorities a further stimulus to examine their use of these provisions and, if necessary, to strengthen and improve their practical operation.
We understand that Opposition Members and, indeed, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which inspired some of these concerns, want to see an effective enforcement regime in place in every local authority area. That is an objective that we entirely share. However, we think that the nannying approach of the amendment is inappropriate. I therefore hope that hon. Members will not press it further.
I owe a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), who posed a very specific inquiry. I have to be careful about any comment on the


case that he raised, lest there be any outstanding enforcement appeals. We think that it might have been possible for Wealden district council to seek an injunction under the 1972 Act. Indeed, that may still be practicable. If my hon. Friend wants a more detailed response, I shall be happy to write to him and, if necessary, place a copy of the reply in the Library.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) raised a number of cases that he had mentioned during the Second Reading debate. However, he also dredged up a new one. I can tell him that Tandridge is represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). It is very easy to establish which constituencies various places are in, and it would have been a courtesy to inform my right hon. and learned Friend that the matter would be raised.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 112.

Division No. 147]
[8.41 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bellotti, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Meale, Alan


Boateng, Paul
Nellist, Dave


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Pike, Peter L.


Cox, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Prescott, John


Dixon, Don
Sillars, Jim


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Soley, Clive


Gordon, Mildred
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wallace, James


Harman, Ms Harriet
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank



Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Keith Vaz.


Kennedy, Charles





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus


Amos, Alan
Freeman, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
Gale, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ashby, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Baldry, Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bellingham, Henry
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Benyon, W.
Hague, William


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Peter
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bowis, John
Hayes, Jerry


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayward, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Burt, Alistair
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Irvine, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Janman, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lightbown, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maclean, David





Mans, Keith
Sims, Roger


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stevens, Lewis


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Paice, James
Watts, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wilshire, David


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sackville, Hon Tom



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Shersby, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 12

GENERAL DUTY OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

`It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and local planning authorities in discharging any of their functions under this Act to have regard to the desirability of securing sustainable development.'.—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 132, in clause 14, page 24, line 4, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Mr. Griffiths: Before we consider the new clause, for the sake of clarity, I wish to underline our welcome for a number of the important steps that the Government have made by seeking to introduce some environmentally important matters into the Bill. However, virtually all of them were introduced after pressure from some Conservative Back Benchers as well as the Opposition—for example, the introduction of environmental assessment, the concession which the Government have just made on development plan priority and the important step which I mentioned earlier on interim development orders, when I underlined that we thought that the Government had not gone far enough.
We are in a similar position on sustainable development. The Government took on board a number of important environmental considerations, but unfortunately they were not prepared to move when we tried to press several matters which would have further improved the Bill in Committee. Yet the previous Secretary of State
is on record as saying:
The planning system is in many ways the most effective tool of environmental management available to us.
We agree with what the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) had to say about the planning system.
We know that public concern about the environment is increasing and we were hoping that when the Bill first came to the Lords the Government would have been leading the way by introducing environmental considerations into the


planning process. However, in Committee we found that, when we wanted to place an environmental duty on local planning authorities, the Government were not prepared to take that on, even though, in nine other instances, such a duty had been placed on other bodies0 through legislation.
The Government were not prepared to take a further step, from introducing environmental assessments for specific planning proposals, to get local authorities to use environmental assessment techniques when drawing up structure plans, even though there have been preliminary proposals for such developments through European legislation.
The Government were not prepared to require local authorities to survey the natural resources within their area —water, minerals and the use of energy; nor were they prepared to accept the inclusion of policies for the conservation of energy and natural resources in development plans. The Government were not prepared to extend to other areas of environmental concern the present requirements for local authorities to use planning permission to minimise the impact of development on trees.
We have been considering some other way which we think will be consonant with the Government's declared objective. We hope that we have found it in the amendment, and that they will be willing to accept greater concern for environmental matters in the planning process. We want to place a general duty on local authorities to have regard to the benefits of securing sustainable development, which is in line with the Government's previously declared objectives. A precedent in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill states that Scottish Natural Heritage
shall have regard to the desirability of securing that any thing done, whether by SNH or any other person, in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner which is sustainable.
The concept of sustainable development has been with us for some years. It is at the heart of much national and international thinking on environment policy and was the key plank of the Brundtland report, "Our Common Future", which gives a definition of sustainable development as
meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
Sustainable development is not a policy of no growth but a policy that says that growth is necessary and desirable, provided it can be done in a sustainable way. Economic development must be matched to the environmental and other resources that are available. In their response to the Brundtland report, the Government expressly accepted that principle and said that the Government
fully intends to continue building on this approach and further to develop policies consistent with the concept of sustainable development.
The Government confirmed the relevance of the planning system to sustainable development by stating that the United Kingdom's planning legislation had already put in place some of the policies needed to achieve it.
Introducing the Government's response to the report, the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), said:
At the Toronto Summit last month, I joined with my fellow Heads of State or Government in endorsing the concept of sustainable development, the central message of the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development—Our Common Future…The message from the Toronto Summit echoed the Report's call for environmental considerations to be taken into account in all areas of economic policy making.

9 pm
That was in July 1988, but the Government's positive approach to sustainable development was reaffirmed in the environment White Paper which was published last September. That document identified it as the foundation of policy making, and said:
The starting point for this Government is the ethical imperative of stewardship…We have a moral duty to look after our planet and to hand it on in good order to future generations. That is what the experts mean when they talk of `sustainable development': not sacrificing tomorrow's prospects for a largely illusory gain today.
We must put a proper value on the natural world. It would be odd to cherish a Constable but not the landscape that he depicted. The foundation stone of all the policies in the White Paper is our responsibility to future generations to preserve and enhance the environment of our country and our planet. Statements made several times by the Government show that they wish to take initiatives to further the achievement of sustainable development and that they recognise the role of the planning system in achieving those aims.
We hope that the Government will give new clause 12 a fair wind, as it would be crucial in helping them to further their aims. Although we have had no indication of their thinking on the matter, given its background and their statements made in support of the concept of sustainable development, we hope that they will accept the new clause and place a general duty on local authorities to have regard to sustainable development when considering all planning matters.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to detain the House long, as many hon. Members wish to return to their constituencies. We all cherish our constituencies, and when one considers what has happened in the past 15 years we learn to cherish them even more. My constituency is still beautiful and contains a large area of outstanding natural beauty. The scale of development leads me to conclude that new clause 12 is well worth supporting, for the reasons so eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
Too often in the past, people have opposed development in areas of natural beauty because they suffer from the NIMBY—"not in my backyard"—syndrome. That has been true in the past 15 or 20 years, when we have seen an explosion in development. It is only natural that people should want to protect what they believe is their special view or their special environment, but there are much wider considerations, as we learn to cherish and treasure what we still have left of our environment. It is concern for those considerations that motivates me, and I believe that I speak on behalf of many of my constituents as they watch the extent and pace of development, which not only may be ugly from an architectural point of view but may jeopardise the environment itself.
As development proceeds apace, our roads become congested. Our infrastructure—our schools and railways—become inadequate. That puts pressure on other Government Departments and on councils responsible for budgets in respect of private development and education.

Mr. Speed: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in his part of the world and mine, the shortage of water represents a very real constraint on such widespread development?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, of which, as an angler, I am


well aware. One has only to look around at some of our reservoirs in the south-east and to note the fall in the water table to realise that we are placing in serious jeopardy the water supply that future generations will enjoy.
I shall not elaborate. I think that I have made my point, and I merely ask the Government to respond.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I happened to come through the constituency of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) yesterday. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I merely went through and admired it on my way to somewhere else. I understand the hon. Gentleman's attachment to preserving what is best about Sussex and many other counties.
The Government could easily incorporate the important statement of principle that is proposed. In doing so, they would not merely confirm the statements that they have made about the general attitude that should govern all environmental policies; they would add something practical to planning legislation.
At the moment, the duties in planning law fall on the Secretary of State—on the Government—or on local authorities. As I understand it, there is nothing in current planning law that requires that all the various jobs done by Ministers in exercising their powers and by local authorities should be compatible with the aim of upholding sustainable development. For example, it is not a prerequisite of the function of a local authority in drawing up a unitary development plan that all the policies therein should be compatible with sustainable development. When a local authority considers a planning application, whether for mineral extraction, for building a reservoir, or for a housing or industrial development, it is not a requirement that it must take account of the concept of sustainability. Similarly, it is not a requirement of Secretaries of State, in deciding planning applications that are remitted to them, that they should decide whether those applications are consistent with sustainability.
If we write such a requirement into law, we shall be filling a gap. It is no good saying that Ministers and local authorities will impute that requirement to the legislation because, if they do not, there is nothing that anyone can do by way of redress; there can be no argument.
There are obvious practical examples. I am not sure whether there have been such examples in Sussex, but there was a controversial case not long ago in Oxfordshire—very near, in fact, to the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was proposed to build a large new residential development in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside. The compatibility of such a proposal with sustainable development raises all sorts of proper questions. For example, is such a development near existing transport routes or will further routes have to be built to service the new town, whether near Henley or near Thame, perhaps with the countryside being destroyed in their wake?
We are talking not only about a statement of principle but about the Government's general commitment, which they now have a chance to enshrine in legislation. It is not just, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) rightly reminded the House, that the Government have already adopted, in legislation that has gone through the House in this Session of Parliament in the Natural Heritage

(Scotland) Bill, a very similar set of words reflecting the concept of sustainability. It is a test, in one of the most practical areas, of doing something about it.
The planning law, the powers that we give to those able to influence the planning of our communities, the structural planning of what is built, what is destroyed and the rest, require sustainability. It is no good believing that we can have sustainable economics—from which the Government are still a long way removed—or a sustainable transport or energy policy, unless the simple step is first taken of having a sustainable planning policy reflecting sustainable development.
So, without knowing exactly what the Government will offer in defence, it is anticipated that it will be said that this is unnecessary because structure plans and guidance issued by the Secretary of State will not make specific legislation a requirement. If that is to be the Minister's answer, I must say that it is not explicitly in legislation, it does not explicitly govern the duties on local and central Government and it is not necessarily enough that it is in guidance notes in read-between-the-lines script. If we cannot have it here, the Government will go into the next election—it is not a point that is any more advantageous to me than it is disadvantageous to the hon. Member for Wealden—with the accusation able to be made against them that they had an opportunity to state and implement their commitment to sustainability but did not take it.
Even if it requires the Minister to throw away his present speech and concede that it is a good idea, that he is under pressure and that the Government should have said yes, I hope that he will so concede.

Mr. Steen: I believe that it is recognised on this side of the House that, for the first time in 20 years, a major planning Bill has come before the House. I resent the view expressed by many of my hon. Friends and colleagues that the Bill should be speeded up because we all want to go home. We do not want to go home. This is a very important debate about a very important matter which affects millions of people in the south and the north of this country. Constituents all over Britain will be affected by this planning Bill. It is a very important Bill and I find it extremely disappointing that the Government are so intransigent as to say that no changes can be made. The Government should be making changes and this is a very important series of amendments.
The new clause tabled by the Opposition talks about sustainable development. It is a matter that has been discussed for the past five or six years as the earth's resources have become scarcer. At the same time, amendment 132 in the name of some of my hon. Friends deals with page 24, line 4, of the Bill and asks the Secretary of State to change the word "may" to "shall", so that the Secretary of State shall make regulations to ensure that the environmental impact is considered by planning committees. How harmless that would be, and how important it would be to constituents all over the country who feel that the planning committee and the planning officials are not giving sufficient emphasis to the effect of development on the environment.
It is all very well having local plans—we all agree that local plans are a good thing. It is all very well having PPGs and saying that they keep the thing running and take precedence over the local plan. But why can there not be


in local plans a recognition of the environmental impact of building houses and ruining green field sites? Why cannot the environmental consequences be considered?
Why are the Government so resistant to any change whatsoever in this Bill? This is an opportunity that may not occur for another 10 years for the Government, being concerned about the environment, to take a lead instead of always acting because the EC has said that action must be taken. The EC has said that the environmental impact is important. Clause 14 says that the Government may introduce regulations when considering the environmental effects of developments. Why not take a lead and change "may" to "shall"?

Dr. Godman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we in Scotland are familiar with environmental impact assessments of developments, particularly developments involving the offshore and onshore oil and gas industries.

Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There is nothing new about what is proposed and the Minister may say that it is not needed, but the House may take a different view, and I urge the Minister to take advantage of being able to say, as we cannot say, that he considers this important, - that he is concerned for the Government's reputation of being concerned with green issues and that he is anxious to do something about it. My instinct tells me that he will not do that, and I want to know why.
I want to be able to tell my constituents why, in towns such as Ivybridge, which has grown from 1,500 to 13,000 people today, there are not sufficient school places, why the police do not have sufficient police cover, and why the leisure facilities are inadequate. That state of affairs exists not because South Hams district council has not done a fine job, but because the local authority has not had the resources to deal with, nor was any assessment made of the impact on the environment and infrastructure of', that speed of development.
The town of Roborough, just outside Plymouth, was built first and then thought was given to what the town needed, such as a police station, a school and health care. The amendment would make sure that before local authorities gave planning permission, regard would be given to whether there was enough water for the people, whether the electricity company could cope with providing power to the new homes and whether the gas board and all the other services could provide the necessary facilities.
The little town of Kingsbridge in South Devon was built so quickly that the electricity substation could not cope. The public house at Stokenham, five miles away, is constantly being plunged into darkness because the electricity supply cannot be maintained. It may be romantic occasionally to dine by candelight, but the owner of that public house finds life intolerable. He cannot cook meals because he cannot rely on having power, and often he is unable to see his customers. He has candles constantly burning because the electricity substation cannot cope. That is the environmental impact argument at work.
If local authorities were told that before agreeing to allow more houses to be built, even if they are included on the local plan, they must ensure that public services can be provided, many difficulties would be avoided. For example, they must ensure that the necessary school places

are available for the kids who will live in the new homes. Such an approach would result from changing "may" to "shall" in clause 14.
Many of my hon. Friends and I want a firming up of the Government attitude to regulating the speed at which development takes place. If there is a defect in the amendment, at least let the Minister agree to do something about the problem with which it attempts to deal. A prior consideration to all development, even if it is in the local plan, must be the ability of the infrastructure to cope with it. That must be a priority.
I apologise to the House for speaking for so long, but the matter is of great interest to me, to my constituents and, as can be seen by the number of hon. Members present, to many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall give three examples in support of the new clause. The first is in an area of my constituency that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know well—Audenshaw. However, I suspect that if you returned to your childhood area, you would find amazing changes. Over the past five or six years, many open spaces have been built on because the local authority has had to agree to planning applications from local builders because it had no reason to turn them down. It turned down a couple of applications, but the builders appealed against the decision and won their case.
The result of all that building is that Audenshaw now has insufficient places in the local primary schools to accommodate the children from the new housing developments. Some of the schools in Audenshaw are fairly old—at least two of the primary schools date back to before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, attended schools in the area—and can no longer cope with the large influx of children.
The local authority could not have turned down the planning applications for new houses on the basis that it would have insufficient places in the schools to cater for the increased population. It must now cope with the ridiculous position of no longer having enough suitable land on which to build new schools. Other areas within Audenshaw have been put under stress as a result of the substantial number of houses that have been built in the area. The local authority should have had the opportunity to consider how many extra houses Audenshaw could take and what other facilities should be put in place before the houses were built.
My second example is the development of supermarkets and do-it-yourself garden centres in Greater Manchester. Planning permission has now been granted to so many such establishments on the south and east sides of Manchester that they are no longer sustainable. Their success will certainly be to the detriment of groups of shops on housing estates and corner stores, on which the elderly and disabled rely because they cannot drive to the large supermarkets for their shopping.
The approval of planning permission for so many large stores means that some of them, inevitably, will not survive. It may be the philosophy of the Conservative party that such competition is perfectly all right and that it is perfectly acceptable if some stores close down in the future, leaving abandoned and derelict sites. It is not acceptable to me. Planning authorities should be able to take account of how many supermarkets and garden centres are sustainable in an area without reorganising the infrastructure to take account of competitive demands.

Mr. Steen: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly. he is saying that local plans should be approved and enforced but that the pace of development in an area should be gauged by the planning committee, according to how much development can be sustained.

Mr. Bennett: We should not allow the overprovision of shopping in a district because it will inevitably mean that some of the shops cannot be sustained, which will have a major impact on different groups of people. If local shops on housing estates close, car owners probably do not have a problem, but pensioners and those without cars, such as the disabled, have a major problem. That means that the local authority or another organisation will have to try to obtain home helps to do the shopping for the elderly, which will have considerable cost implications for the local authority. I could develop that point at some length, but I am trying to be brief.
I deeply regret that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill became an Act. I hope that we do not see any more such private Bills. I fear that, with Government proposals for the privatisation of ports and if private business procedure is reformed, a series of planning applications for the development of some of the ports affected by the ports legislation could come before local authorities. One can make out a case for almost all those ports to expand, not on the basis that this country is to have more imports and exports going through its ports, but simply because one port can take business away from another port.
There should be a limit to that sort of competition, particularly if it means that, each time one of the ports wants to expand, it has to take up a piece of estuary or mudflat—natural habitat that is already in scarce supply. We must make some attempt to look at this country as a whole. We must consider the level of dock development necessary for the country to be sustained and once we have reached that level, we should say that, although it may be nice for Hartlepool, Felixstowe or Southampton to take trade from each other, we do not want competition so that one port takes trade from another, a little bit more estuary disappears and more dockland becomes derelict. We want a sustainable, planned level of port activity, which minimises the amount of natural environment that is destroyed and offers this country some prospect of sustainable development to protect our natural environment for future generations—as outlined in the White Paper.

Mr. Cryer: New clause 12 is of great importance, because development should be sustainable. However, at present, local authority planning committees cannot use that as a relevant factor when making decisions on planning consent. If local councillors say to their officials, "Let's see if this development is sustainable in secure financial terms before we consider giving consent to the developers, so that we are not left with a half-completed development and a pile of rubble on our hands, with the local authority left to pick up the pieces," the officials will almost certainly reply that that is not a planning matter. They will probably say, "If you councillors decide that planning consent should be deferred, the developer may say that that is deemed as refusal and go to court for a judicial review." No one wants to become involved in that procedure, because it is expensive and weighs heavily on the local authorities.
In Bradford, the west end development scheme started off as a fairly modest development involving about £60

million, but the cost has now increased to £300 million and the project includes the proposed demolition and conversion of a perfectly good multiscreen cinema of long-standing—now called the Odeon, formerly the New Victoria—and the part or whole demolition of a co-operative shop based on the designs of Eric Mendelson. The cognoscenti will know that Mendelson was a distinguished pre-war architect who developed a clean, classical, functional, modern line, of which the Bradford Sunwin house co-operative store remains a splendid but isolated national example.
The local authority decided that a firm called 3Ds Ltd. should be the developer. The company has 100 £1 shares, which does not seem to be the soundest basis on which to embark on a development of about £300 million. The company has made it absolutely clear that it depends on city grant for the sustainability of the development but city grant is not negotiated with the local authority, as the Minister knows. The local authority is excluded from the negotiations, which are conducted exclusively between Department of the Environment officials and the developer. Therefore, if the developer is not sustained—let us suppose that the Department of the Environment misjudges and the project falls—who picks up the pieces? The local authority picks up the pieces, but it has been excluded from the beginning. If it raises the question of the sustainability of the development, it is not allowed to pursue it, which is why the new clause is important.
9.30 pm
Let us consider another aspect of city grant and sustainability. Let us suppose, as in the west end scheme in Bradford, that the developer says that he needs £40 million. That is almost all the city grant award, which currently runs at £65 million or £60 million. Let us suppose that, as in this case, the developer has stitched up a deal with Department of Environment officials who say that they cannot award £40 million now but will do so over a period of years. The only application being considered at the time is £5 million of city grant. The Department of the Environment will not answer questions relating to the rest of the £35 million application.
City grant's criteria require housing to be incorporated, but the first section that has been applied for does not include housing. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the local authority to inquire whether the Department of the Environment will give city grant to incorporate housing and to fulfill the criteria in future "tranches"—a buzz word in these affairs—of city grant. However, the Department of the Environment will not even say whether any other applications are being considered, so the sustainability of the project must be open to question.
If the local authority raised the issue of the sustainability of the rolling programme to complete the £300 million development—I am fairly sure, but not certain, that it did—it would be told that that was not a planning aspect to be taken into consideration. After all, if planning consent is given, 3Ds Ltd. might sell it the next day to another developer. In that limited, narrow context, this is not a relevant factor, but it should be because development in the city of Bradford should benefit the people of Bradford. The local authority should be able to scrutinise developments and to ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that the finance is there.
What is even more worrying is the fact that, of the 100 £1 shares of 3Ds Ltd., 30 are issued to a firm called Old


Court Ltd., which is registered in Guernsey. I made a request that the planning committee should inquire into the firm to find out why one third of the shares were held in secret, with a complete lack of accountability. Does the firm have adequate resources? What is the financial position, and can the firm sustain the development and ensure that the local authority is not left with piles of rubble from the demolition work in the first phase because the firm has gone into liquidation? Although my letter was read out to the planning committee, I was told that it was not a planning matter and that those points would not be taken into account.
The secret of the 30 £1 shares remained, until I saw the March issue of Labour Research, in which there was an article on firms profiting from pornography. It listed a number of companies involved in pornographic publications. One is a firm called Old Court Ltd., registered in Guernsey, which produces Penthouse and Forum.1t lists another firm called Power Radio Ltd., whose publications include Cheap Thrills and Electric Blue.
In the first phase of development, there is an Omnimax cinema. I wonder what sort of cinema the developers have in mind, in view of the background information. Such information should have been available to the planning committee so that it could examine scrupulously, as it wished to, the sustainability of the west end scheme.
Although some modest infill development in the west end of Bradford may be possible and desirable, the £300 million scheme, with the demolition of a splendid cinema and a perfectly well-designed co-operative shop is neither desirable nor needed. One aspect of scrutiny is consideration by the planning committee of the local authority, which includes elected representatives to exercise a degree of control. If the new clause is not accepted, that possibility remains limited.
I have raised strong reservations about the west: end scheme. I have been informed that there will be scrutiny at the planning stage. However, because of the narrow interpretation of what planning scrutiny is, the scrutiny by the local authority, especially in association with city grant—the Government have deliberately cut out local authorities from the discussion process—is limited.
I hope that all aspects can be taken into fair account in the planning committee's meetings, which are open to the general public. I hope that councillors will have the fullest information so that they can be guided on a wider basis by local authority officials. For that to happen, the new clause will have to be accepted. That would help local democracy, rather than hinder it and it would help planning procedures rather than hinder them.
On a wider basis, as hon. Members of all parties have said, important environmental decisions could be taken into account so that developments are sustainable. Planning decisions should not be dealt with in the short term, with local authorities often having to pick up the pieces because planning decisions are translated into schemes that are not sustainable.

Sir George Young: This has been a useful debate on environmental matters, in which a number of hon. Members have displayed their environmental credentials. I speak as a paid-up member of the Ealing branch of Friends of the Earth. With my wife, I am being sponsored on a tandem ride to Hever castle later this month to raise funds for a friendly and earthy group of people.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) welcomed some of the moves that the Government have made in the Bill, although he said that we could have gone further. When we have resisted amendments, it has often not been because we oppose what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. We have simply found better ways of doing it than putting it into primary legislation. Often the difference has been on the means rather than on the ends.
I listened to the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). We all have a responsibility to hand over our constituency—I hope that it will not be for a long time in his case—in the same beautiful condition in which we inherited it. He developed a theme, which was echoed by other hon. Members, that, when one makes a district plan, each ingredient, such as housing, education, water and sewerage should be consistent with the others.
In a sense, the whole point of having a district plan is so that one does not build housing in isolation. One has a five-year plan that sets out the demands of the various statutory undertakers so that one has a planned cohesive development. I will say in a moment or two what we outline in PPG3 about infrastructure and the problems of reconciling all the different parts. I would not dissent from the general thesis of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I shall make a point of saying in a few moments that the amendment is unnecessary, because I know that he would be disappointed if I did not use those words.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) accused the Government of being intransigent. He is unfair in this case. His amendment No. 132 is an amendment to clause 14, which the Government included in the Bill in response to pressure in Committee—a concession from the Government on environmental assessment which my hon. Friend seeks to drive a stage further. So perhaps that is not the best example to allege that the Government are intransigent.
I listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). He said that there should be a coherent approach so that all the infrastructure pieces fall neatly into place. I think that I am right in saying that the House is looking at the relationship between environmental assesment and private Bills.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in an ingenious speech, developed the word "sustainability" in a sense that no one else had suggested. He spoke of financial sustainability, while everyone else was talking about environmental sustainability. In a sense, he may have done some damage to those tabling the amendments simply by casting doubt on what is meant by sustainability.
At first glance, new clause 12 appears beguiling and unexceptionable. As an expression of principle, I could not find fault with it. Indeed, as has already been pointed out, in the environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance" last year, the Government made clear their view that the concept of sustainable developments must guide our approach to the custody and use of the world's resources.
On a general level, the term "sustainable development" can be defined in a number of ways. The White Paper described sustainable development as
living on the earth's income rather than eroding its capital…keeping the consumption of renewable natural resources within the limits of their replenishment
and


handing down to successive generations not only man-made wealth…but also natural wealth, such as clean and adequate water supplies, good arable land, a wealth of wild life and ample forests.
In other words, we should not sacrifice tomorrow's prospects for a largely illusory gain today.
The Brundtland report, "Our Common Future", quoted by the hon. Member for Bridgend, defines the principle in similar terms as
meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
I suspect that all hon. Members would accept those as general acceptable descriptions of the principle. But even laudable general principles do not always translate well into legislation, and I think that that was the case here. The difficulty arises when we consider just how the requirement in the new clause would work in practice on a day-to-day basis.
Local planning authorities are already statutorily required, when dealing with planning applications, to have regard to the material provisions of the development plan and to all other material considerations. Schedule 3 provides that local plans must include policies for conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the land, and for improving the physical environment. Every development proposal will therefore be considered in the context of those policies.
New clause 12 would introduce a wholly new element into the determination of every development proposal. Each planning application would be subjected to the test of whether it secured sustainable development. That would substantially and unacceptably unbalance the planning system, conflicting with the thesis on which it has always operated—that development proposals should be allowed unless they would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
The hon. Member for Bridgend mentioned the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill which contains a similar provision to that suggested here. That is designed to guide the actions of a particular body—Scottish Natural Heritage. Because it has a statutory duty to weigh all material considerations before reaching a decision on a planning application, the position of the local authorities and the Secretary of State is different from that of Scottish Natural Heritage, which has a narrower remit.
In practice, as we have seen from the debate just now, new clause 12 would attract differing interpretations of what sustainable development means. It would leave much room for subjective assessments, not only by decision-makers but by those affected by proposed development. That would be likely to lead to many more unresolved conflicts of opinion and an increase in the number of planning appeals. Some local planning authorities could use the proposed new provision unscrupulously to prevent development that they wanted to block for any reason.
One could argue that any development that uses aggregates is not a sustainable development because there is a finite supply of aggregates. There is difficulty in saying to an authority that, with each application, it must—whatever the terms of the new clause—have regard to the desirability of securing suitable sustainable development. One could use that to knock out almost any development.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that the concerns that he expressed can be met by planning guidance or planning circulars. If the Government make a statement of principle in the Bill, as they have in planning

legislation since the war, it can be amplified and clarified by circulars and guidance—which can be the subject of consultation before being issued. Individual decisions would then be compatible with that general requirement, and a local authority would not need to have regard to sustainability as one of the requirements that it must observe. The Minister did not cite an existing example, and I suspect that that is because none exists.

Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that local authorities should have a general duty to promote sustainable development, that is a thesis with which we can all agree. However, new clause 12 suggests that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of local planning authorities, in discharging any of their functions, to have regard to the desirability of sustainable development. A local authority could use that to reject any development it chose, on the ground that it was not sustainable.

Mr. Hughes: indicated dissent.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey shakes his head, but if one includes such a provision in primary legislation, local planning authorities will have a perfect opportunity to block just about anything they wanted.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Is not the Minister using an extreme example? He knows that such a practice would quickly be countered by planning guidance from his Department, if needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested the use of a statutory instrument procedure as a way of keeping us all involved in the process. The Minister is trying to excuse himself from accepting what he knows to be a perfectly good principle, by citing an extreme example.

Sir George Young: I have made it clear that I have no difficulty with the principle. The Government have already signed up to it—I quoted the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman is on dangerous ground when he suggests that it does not matter if the legislation is slightly wrong, because it could be corrected by guidance. The whole thrust of the debate earlier today was that a number of my hon. Friends do not like the prospect of the Government using PPGs to change the planning system. The hon. Member for Bridgend must make up his mind whether he wants the Government to put things right by way of PPGs, or whether he is more interested in putting sensible legislation on the statute book.
I sympathise with the aim underlying the new clause. The Government wholeheartedly support the concept of sustainable development—we are on record as saying so. Such an expression of general principle is useful to inform and guide the development of Government policy on environment matters. However, the new clause would give rise to intractable practical difficulties. Its apparent innocuousness is deceptive. Whatever is put on the statute book must have a discernible intention, and interpretation of the clause would inevitably be open to abuse.

Mr. Steen: If the Minister cannot accept sustainable development, does he not agree that clause 14—which, as he pointed out, the Government inserted, and for which I am grateful—provides an easier way to proceed? It provides, very simply, that the Secretary of State may


make regulations about the environmental impact of any proposed development. He need merely change the word "may" to "shall", and get on with it.

Sir George Young: Perhaps I can get on with it and deal with amendment 132, which requires the Secretary of State to make regulations under clause 14. As I said a moment ago, clause 14 was added in Committee, following careful consideration of the points made in several debates on environmental assessment in another place, and by hon. Members on both sides of this House on Second Reading. The clause provides an enabling power under which the Secretary of State can make regulations requiring environmental assessment of classes of development before planning permission is granted. Such regulations may make provision similar to that made in the regulations under the European Communities Act 1972, which implement the EC directive on environmental assessment.
We agreed to the inclusion of the clause because we support the principle that, where a development project is likely to have significant environmental effects, those effects ought to be assessed before the project is permitted to go ahead, and because we also accept that the existing Community directive may not cover all kinds of project that are likely to have significant environmental effects, and which ought therefore to be the subject of assessment. But the coverage of the EC directive, and of the implementing regulations, is very full, so we do not expect it to be necessary to cover many types of project in regulations under the clause. If hon. Members consult "Environmental Assessment: A Guide to the Procedures", and the annexes in particular, they will note that most of the developments to which environmental assessment is appropriate are already included. The types are set out at the back. The reason why we included that is that some projects may fall outside it.
It is too early to say what kinds of project might be included in regulations under the clause. That is why we prefer the permissive option to the compulsion suggested in the amendment.
We have undertaken that the Government will consult those concerned before making such regulations. A number of suggestions have been made both in this House and in another place, and we will of course be looking at them. The principal criteria must be whether projects of the types in question are likely to have significant environmental effects, and whether they are already covered by the existing directive. The scope of the directive is, after all, very wide and the types of project that it covers already require assessment by virtue of the regulations implementing it.
A final consideration relates to activities that are subject to the internationally competitive market. Our objective is to maintain a level playing field throughout the Community and in such cases we would aim to agree an amendment to the directive rather than to take unilateral action under clause 14
.
I have tried to explain why we cannot go along with the new clause, although we subscribe to the philosophy behind it. I have also explained why we prefer the permissive way in which clause 14 is expressed. I hope that, on reflection, the Opposition will not press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 116.

Division No. 148]
[9.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Kirkwood, Archy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Bellotti, David
Nellist, Dave


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Pike, Peter L.


Boateng, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Tom
Soley, Clive


Cryer, Bob
Vaz, Keith


Dixon, Don
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Harman, Ms Harriet
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Kennedy, Charles





NOES


Adley, Robert
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Alexander, Richard
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Amess, David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Amos, Alan
Knowles, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Maclean, David


Ashby, David
Malins, Humfrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Mans, Keith


Baldry, Tony
Maude, Hon Francis


Bellingham, Henry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Benyon, W.
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Mills, Iain


Bottomley, Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Moate, Roger


Bowis, John
Moss, Malcolm


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Neubert, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Nicholls, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Norris, Steve


Browne, John (Winchester)
Page, Richard


Budgen, Nicholas
Paice, James


Burt, Alistair
Patnick, Irvine


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carrington, Matthew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Chapman, Sydney
Powell, William (Corby)


Chope, Christopher
Rathbone, Tim


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Rhodes James, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Cope, Rt Hon John
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Couchman, James
Sackville, Hon Tom


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Shaw, David (Dover)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Shersby, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Sims, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Dover, Den
Speller, Tony


Dunn, Bob
Stanbrook, Ivor


Freeman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gale, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Goodlad, Alastair
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gregory, Conal
Twinn, Dr Ian


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Viggers, Peter


Hague, William
Waller, Gary


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Warren, Kenneth


Hawkins, Christopher
Watts, John


Hayes, Jerry
Wilshire, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hayward, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Hind, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Yeo, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Hunter, Andrew



Irvine, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Jack, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Tim Boswell.


Janman, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister—business motion.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Not moved, Sir.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Chapman.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Every morning, you have to go through the Order Paper. You know that today's Order Paper contains a business motion to enable the debate on the Planning and Compensation Bill to continue after 10 o'clock. The Government are now in such a mess that they cannot even move their own business motion. They have reached the end of their tether.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There cannot be any point of order. I called the 10 o'clock business motion, but it was not moved.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The answer to your question, "Debate to be resumed what day?" was, "Tomorrow." We have to presume that that is a fiction, because there is business set down for tomorrow until 2.30 pm. Given that the Government accept that there will be lots of time in which this Bill can be debated, that they clearly recognise that an early election is off the agenda, and that we all here for several months to come, including you, Sir, perhaps they will have a chance to re-think some of the unsound policies in this Bill and get them right second time round.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I had better deal with points of order one at a time. "Tomorrow" is secret language; it might mean any day.

Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is a Government who care about the family, is it in order for us to go home now, at 10 o'clock?

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we were expecting to complete the Bill tonight and as many of us stayed here to debate items that we have not reached, has the Leader of the House given you any sign that he wishes to make a statement about the business of the House? There was a statement earlier today announcing next week's business. May we expect him to make a request to you to make a statement, or can we assume that tomorrow is some time away?

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make it clear that the Opposition are keen to go ahead with the Bill? Indeed, when you were not in the Chair, Conservative Members complained at the way in

which the Government were trying to curtail debating time. I imagine that Conservative Members who are interested in this important legislation will feel even more aggrieved that the Government are not pressing ahead. We invite them to do so. We are willing to scrutinise the Bill, but they have thrown the towel in, and it is a disgrace.

Mr. Wilshire: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Is it parliamentary language to describe the 24 Labour Members who voted against the clause just now as "many"? I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Burnley say that many Opposition Members wished to carry on the debate. I do not think that 24 is many.

Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The real point behind all this and behind the secret language that you are referring to is the secret language of new clause 16 and of new clause 22, which deals with hedgerows. The Government face defeat on both clauses because sufficient Conservative members were not going to support them. I suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is an opportunity for the Government to complete the Bill as they intended to do tonight. Indeed, consultations with members of our Front Bench confirmed that the Government wanted to do so. If they concede on clause 22, as I suggested to them in a bid at the beginning, we would be willing to continue on that basis; the arrangements that they make on clause 16 are a matter for them. Otherwise, the only interpretation is that the Government cannot deliver their members on a vote of this sort.

Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been debating a large and complex 76-clause Bill. This evening many hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken a keen interest in the passage of the Bill. We have a long way to go, and, in the Government's view, it makes sense to devote further time on another day to the completion of this important measure. No doubt the usual channels will be in discussion to find a suitable time.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we need any more points of order. I often hear Members complaining that they are kept up late at night. Legislation is not—

Mr. Haynes: This is a correction.

Mr. Speaker: Legislation is not well dealt with at a late hour. The Government have not moved their motion; there is nothing more to be said. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) can get his car and go back to his constituency.

Mr. Haynes: It is not fair. I am trying to listen to you, Mr. Speaker, but there is a load of rabble rousers on the Conservative Benches. I never heard a word that you said. I rise to correct something that was said by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He referred to 24 Labour Members voting. There were two Opposition Whips, and I was one of them. That is 26, not 24. You, Mr. Speaker, should correct him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. If he did not hear me, I said that he should now get his car and go home.

Nuclear Waste (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Many hon. Members are leaving to return to their families, but other hon. Members wish to raise important issues this evening. I am glad to see members of all parties present to listen to the debate. It is a brief debate, but I warn the Minister that my hon. Friends and I will return to this subject time and again because the Scottish National party regards it as critical.
I shall seek information from the Minister on various points that concern me, my constituents and many others throughout Scotland. If he cannot respond as I raise them, I am willing to wait for a detailed written response, but I expect unequivocal answers to my points. I raise them with sincerity and humility, because this is one of the major issues facing not only Scotland but the rest of the United Kingdom and the world. It deserves serious attention.
I start from the point of view that my party has always argued that the disposal of nuclear waste should be addressed internationally. We recognise our responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste produced in Britain. We believe that nuclear waste should be stored on site and above ground, where it can be carefully monitored.
It appears that Scotland is being singled out to become the nuclear dustbin of the world; we are being expected to launder everyone's nuclear waste. The only advantage that anyone can see is that money will go to the Exchequer in London, but we in Scotland will lose our vital industries.
The Government have said clearly that they place the environment at the top of their political agenda. In her speech to the 1988 Conservative party conference, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), said:
No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy, with a full repairing lease. This Government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full.
Perhaps for the only time, I agree with the right hon. Lady.
Nuclear waste disposal is seen in Scotland as the key environmental issue of the day. The case against siting a repository for nuclear waste at Dounreay and Caithness is unassailable, whatever criteria any of us care to apply, be they moral, democratic, environmental or economic.
Let me emphasise the democratic decision. Without doubt, the overwhelming majority of public opinion in Scotland is against the use of Dounreay as the site for a deep waste disposal repository. The vast majority of Scotland's elected representatives—in this House, in the European Parliament and in all other representative bodies—have clearly expressed their opposition.
I refer in particular to what happens in the Highland region, where Highland regional council itself is spearheading the opposition to the use of Dounreay. In Caithness, the area most directly affected, a referendum was held in which the people voted 3:1 against Nirex using Dounreay as a waste dump. Almost 12,000 people voted. That is a 58 per cent. turnout, which, by most standards, is quite high. In a local government by-election, a turnout of half the electorate is considered quite good. In Caithness, 58 per cent. responded, and 73 per cent. of them

said no. Only 3,000—25 per cent.—of them were in favour. By any democratic yardstick, that is a clear indication of the opinion of the people of that area.
The Minister should address himself to the democratic argument. I can think of no one better whose remarks to quote in this context than the present Secretary of State for Scotland. In April 1979, the right hon. Gentleman was the prospective parliamentary candidate for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, where consideration was being given to the possibility of using Mullwarchar as a disposal site. On 19 April 1979, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Conservation Society saying that he found it difficult to understand what the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was up to:
As they said they would take account of public opinion, which is unanimously hostile, I find it extremely disappointing that UKAEA should have decided to take the matter further, with an appeal to the Secretary of State, after the clear rejection of their earlier application.
As that was the view of the Secretary of State on a proposal affecting his own area, let me make a direct plea to him to exercise the same attitude towards the people of Caithness, the people of Highland region and the people of Scotland who have spoken out against the proposal. The Government claim to listen to democratic voices and respect democratic aspirations. If that is so, they should surely respond and display an attitude much more constructive than that which they have recently shown.
I do not wish to dwell for too long on the economic and social impact of siting a deep waste repository in Caithness because I have already spoken out about it in previous debates. I should say to the Minister, however, that when I speak on these issues I am not merely expressing the passion that I feel about them; I am recognising my responsibility to my constituents and to the many people who write to me on the matter.
The Minister should talk to a fisherman from my constituency, a farmer in Caithness or a whisky distiller somewhere in the highlands—perhaps from Speyside, in my own area. He should talk to anyone involved in the tourist industry. All of them know full well the implications of the Government's proposals. They know what the knock-on effect will be. The perception of a clean environment on which our industries depend could be destroyed if the Government continue with their intention, through Nirex, to use Caithness as a site for nuclear waste disposal. All of them know that 100 long-term jobs may be made available through the siting of the repository, but that those 100 jobs will mean nothing if we then lost thousands of jobs because the perception of our clean environment has gone and we cannot sell our produce in the domestic or international markets. Those views have been expressed to me by business men who know full well what the implications are. It is not a question of scaremongering. It is a genuine fear. It is a genuine recognition of the situation.
Again, the Secretary of State, on this very point, said in April 1979:
I believe it is quite unacceptable even to contemplate the irretrievable storage of nuclear waste in the manner proposed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, as no amount of preliminary research can guarantee its safety for the very long period of its continuing radioactivity. For that reason the question of exploratory test bores is irrelevant and they should not be proceeded with.
He went on:
As regards the suggestion that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be after the election, might grant approval to


the test bores without holding a public inquiry, I cannot of course speak for other parties, but having investigated the matter within my own"—
that is the Conservative party
I am quite satisfied that under a Conservative Secretary of State such action would be entirely out of the question.
We see a very clear contrast between what was said by the right hon. Gentleman in 1979 and what is now being said in 1991 because, Highland regional council having made it clear that it did not want planning permission for this to go ahead, the Secretary of State has overruled its wishes and is imposing a very different viewpoint from his previous one on the people of the highlands of Scotland. That is an element of hypocrisy which I am not prepared to accept as a Member of the House and a representative of the communities in the north of Scotland.
When he last spoke about this issue in the House in a debate on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, the Minister, who is in his place, said:
Nirex has made it clear that, other factors being equal, Sellafield—not Dounreay—will be the preferred site because of transport considerations."—[Official Report, 25 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 1254.]
Within the House that evening there was a general consensus among all the parties, including supporters of the nuclear industry, who asked why in that case we were continuing to have this planning blight held over our heads in the north of Scotland. It became quite clear that the Minister believed that Dounreay would not be the site for the disposal of nuclear waste. Why then was it, since many of us went away feeling heartened by the situation, that a matter of days later the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he would allow 200 to 250 test boreholes to be drilled in the Dounreay area, with the possibility of 6,000 test boreholes eventually being undertaken?
I have done a fair amount of research on what exactly is meant by these boreholes, or shotholes, as Nirex and the Minister seem to prefer to call them. What worries me in particular is how we in the area express our concern. The Minister says that there will need to be a further planning inquiry. What kind of planning inquiry will it be? Will it be a situation in which Nirex has an open cheque book, with blank cheques, underwritten by the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Transport and for Scotland—by the Government themselves—while those of us who oppose this project will be left to beg, to raise money in charitable ways, in order to fund our advocates and solicitors? If there is to be any further planning inquiry, it must be on a level playing field, so that voices have equal force.
At what stage will the planning inquiry be implemented? Will it be after the 250, of after the 6,000, or will it be when we get to the possibility of 1,000 metre deep holes being drilled into Caithness? I understand—and this comes from research undertaken by the House of Commons Library—that eventually there will need to be some 20 to 30 boreholes about 1,000 m deep. They will pass through unconsolidated surface sediments, Devonian age sandstones and then into Moine basement rock. The Devonian and Moine are both highly consolidated, so drilling through them is very slow. Coring is slow and expensive. The time taken to drill and test each borehole will probably be about six months and each will cost between £5 million and £10 million.
When examining that type of situation, we must know in our communities what facility we have to argue our case

as matters proceed. There is a deep-seated suspicion and anxiety about why, if Dounreay is not the preferred option of Nirex but Sellafield is for intermediate and low level waste, we are going ahead with the testbore drillings.
I want a categorical assurance from the Minister—I plead with him not to mince words—that there will never be the possibility of Dounreay being used for high-level waste disposal. Many people suspect that it will be, and I appreciate their fears because much secrecy has surrounded what has been going on. We need that type of assurance for our people, for our industries and for the sake of future generations.
I could speak for 15 hours on this subject, but I see that the Minister is anxious to respond to my remarks. I do not have time to raise issues such as transportation and whether article 37 of the Euratom treaty is being observed or disregarded by the Government. I have spoken with sincerity and concern for the people of my area. I hope that tonight we shall have a positive response from the Government. We deserve such a response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on being successful in raising this issue on the Adjournment, and I shall answer the questions that she asked. The first related to the Secretary of State. She referred to the views expressed by my right hon. Friend at the inquiry into a proposal for geological investigations in an area adjoining his constituency and suggested that his attitude towards the Dounreay application was at variance with the stance that he adopted at that time.
It is over 11 years since that inquiry took place. Scientific understanding of the technology of nuclear waste disposal has moved on a great deal in the intervening decade. At that time, the question was whether low and intermediate-level nuclear waste could be safely disposed of on land. Since then, the Government have accepted the advice of their professional advisors that it is indeed safe to do so.
The hon. Lady called for an international approach. I am glad to tell her that other countries have taken the same view including the Swedes who, as the House knows, take matters of environmental safety extremely seriously. Finland, Switzerland, Germany and America also take that view. As the Secretary of State for the Environment stated on 21 March 1989:
It is now Government policy that a deep repository should be established and that two sites which appear suitable should be investigated in detail.
But Ministers have also made it quite clear, as I have said, that any proposal to construct such a repository will be the subject of full debate at a public local inquiry. This will provide every opportunity for a full discussion of the very understandable concerns about the implications of nuclear waste disposal that my right hon. Friend articulated on behalf of his constituents some 11 years ago.
While I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate, I am disappointed that this morning, at a press conference, she should have engaged in an element of scaremongering. I appreciate that her opposition to a deep disposal facility for low and


intermediate-level waste at Dounreay has been longstanding, but her claim that the Government have plans for a high-level waste repository there is totally without foundation.
I must make it clear that the United Kingdom has no disposal policy as yet for high-level waste. As I shall explain, it is to be stored in vitrified form for at least 50 years before disposal is required. UK Nirex has been charged to locate, develop and design a deep disposal facility for low and intermediate-level waste only. It has no such role in relation to high-level waste.
Nor are the flaws in the hon. Lady's analysis confined to that suggestion. I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to her and to explain the intentions of the Scottish Office and its determination to dispose of radioactive waste in a way which guarantees maximum safety. The recommendation of UK Nirex, to which the Government agreed, was that a comparative study of the two sites should be made until the point was reached when efforts could be concentrated on one preferred site.
It is important to establish at the outset that the disposal of radioactive material is a matter of direct relevance to Scotland, which is certainly not being singled out. Some 50 per cent. of the electricity generated in Scotland comes from nuclear power stations. It is therefore a vital element in our generating capacity and the Government must pursue a responsible policy for managing the spent fuel from the nuclear power stations and radioactive wastes from other sources in Scotland. Further wastes will arise from the decommissioning of power stations and the reprocessing plants at Dounreay as they complete their operational life. Decommissioning work has already started at Hunterston A power station. It will also be needed later this decade when the fast breeder prototype reactor at Dounreay stops production. Therefore, the Scottish Office has a moral duty to find the best and safest solution.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have many questions to answer and I should like to complete them, but I will follow up later any points on which the hon. Lady requires further information.
Three categories of radioactive waste require Government action in terms of their safe disposal. Steps to dispose of high-level waste are best taken after 50 years, when the heat and radioactivity has significantly decayed. That will simplify disposal. Accordingly, the Government's policy on such waste is that it should be stored in a vitrified form for at least 50 years. A vitrification plant was opened at Sellafield earlier this year and will secure the crucial first step in that process. The arrangements for the final disposal of the waste remain to be decided, but we have time on our side because of the requirement that storage should last for at least 50 years.
Heat generation from intermediate and low-level waste is no technical obstacle to emplacement, and UK Nirex has advised the Government that the most sensible course of action for those categories of waste is to be co-disposed in a deep disposal facility. It is proposed to adopt a multi-barrier containment approach, designed to keep the radioactive substances away from people, animals and plants by using a series of different and separate physical

and chemical barriers until the process of radioactive decay makes them barely distinguishable from naturally occurring materials.
At present, there are shallow disposal sites for low-level waste at Drigg, near Sellafield, and at Dounreay. There is capacity at Drigg into the next century. However, there are no existing disposal facilities for intermediate-level waste, which must all be stored pending a suitable disposal arrangement. UK Nirex Ltd. has the task of developing a disposal facility for low-level and intermediate waste and, in the pursuit of that task, there have been activities and planning applications in respect of land at Dounreay to which the hon. Lady takes exception.
Many parts of the United Kingdom have potentially suitable geology for such a repository. The principal requirement is that there should be suitable rock at the right depth with low and predictable water flow. The hon. Lady called for that problem to be redressed internationally, and there is a worldwide consensus that underground repositories are the most promising disposal option. Indeed, one is already in operation in Sweden, one is being constructed in Finland, and plans are well advanced in Switzerland, Germany and the United States. Scientists and geologists are satisfied that we now have the technological capability for a fully verified and safe repository.
UK Nirex has chosen to concentrate its investigations at two sites where the nuclear industry is already established and where the local population has come to understand that safety—both for the work force and for the surrounding environment—is an extremely important consideration on the part of the nuclear industry. The two sites are Sellafield, where the country's major nuclear reprocessing plant is situated, and Dounreay, where reprocessing work, albeit on a much smaller scale, has been undertaken for many years and where there is a prototype fast breeder reactor.
UK Nirex has systematically set about the necessary task of establishing whether the geological conditions were suitable at each site. To that end, it has completed two deep boreholes at Sellafield and a third and fourth are being drilled at present. Planning permission has been given for a further two deep boreholes, so that a complete and satisfactory geological analysis may be secured. At Dounreay, one deep borehole has been completed and drilling on another is to start shortly. Nirex only has planning permission for those two boreholes. Because the geology is more straightforward at Dounreay, it is not considered necessary to seek permission for more deep boreholes during the present preliminary investigations
.
The deep boreholes are extremely informative about the geology at Dounreay, but a complete geological analysis requires UK Nirex to understand the geology of the whole area and this requires a variety of geophysical surveys to be undertaken in the area surrounding the main Dounreay complex. A seismic survey using lorry-mounted vibration sources has been completed but this may need to be supplemented by a further survey in which the vibration sources will be small explosive charges in shallow shotholes—a standard and widely used survey technique, for example in the oil industry. UK Nirex sought permission for a maximum of 6,000 shallow shotholes. However, it is assessing the non-intrusive seismic work already undertaken and if further work is deemed necessary, it is intended in the first instance to do no more


than 200 to 240 of those shallow shotholes, following up with further shotholes in those areas where the geology remains unclear.
It is intended that work at both Dounreay and Sellafield will be sufficiently advanced by the latter part of this year to enable UK Nirex to decide which of the two sites is preferred so that they may concentrate further efforts on that site alone. As I stated on the Floor of the House on 25 April—and I chose my words with care—UK Nirex has made it clear that, other factors being equal, Sellafield and not Dounreay will be the preferred site because of transport considerations.
Highland regional council has made it clear that it is opposed in principle to any repository being established within its boundaries. It has sought to resist that possibility by a variety of means, including the exercise of its planning powers. It included in its structure plan review policies opposing the establishment of a repository within the region and any geological research needed to investigate the suitability of sites for such a purpose. It also refused planning application for two deep boreholes and for the shallow shotholes required for the seismic survey.
The Secretary of State, in approving the structure plan, deleted the policies on nuclear waste disposal. That was because there is a national interest in the safe disposal of such waste. It would be entirely inappropriate if a local authority, in discharging its planning responsibilities, could on the basis of local consideration frustrate the pursuit of such a national objective. It was my right hon. Friend's duty, as the guardian of the national interest, to look at this matter objectively in the best interests of Scotland as a whole.

Mrs. Ewing: rose——

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is a fundamental principle of the planning system that all applications and appeals must be decided solely on the planning merits of the development or operation proposed. But in both cases that have come to the Secretary of State on appeal, the council turned down the applications on grounds which in essence have nothing to do with the proposals themselves. It and other opponents based their objections not on the effects of the drilling and seismic surveys, but on the possible consequences of a subsequent application for planning permission for a repository, which might or might not be proposed. As I have already said, setting aside the geological considerations, Sellafield has significant cost advantages.
The Secretary of State's decision on both appeals were in the nature quasi-judicial decisions and based on the planning merits of the proposals themselves. His decisions

showed that he had considered those proposals most thoroughly and taken great care to satisfy himself that they were acceptable. In particular, he took steps to mitigate any adverse environmental consequences that might arise. Thus, in granting permission for the seismic survey, he imposed conditions designed to ensure that the survey did not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise, dust emission, vibration and general disturbance and that loss of amenity was kept within tolerable limits. My right hon. Friend's reasoning is set out in full in the decision letter, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
I cannot repeat too often what has already been made clear by several members of the Government, including the Prime Minister—that this decision in no way pre-empts a decision on any future application to build a repository. As I said on Report stage of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, planning permission would be required before a repository could be constructed at either Sellafield or Dounreay. The Government have given a clear commitment that the relevant application would be called in for decision by the appropriate Secretary of State and a full public local inquiry would be held.
It is at that inquiry that the legitimate interests of the Highland regional council about any detrimental effects on the environment, economy and infrastructure, and the hon. Lady's points about whisky and fishing, would be fully taken into account if a planning application were submitted. I very much regret that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) implied that the Government would prejudge any such application. That is not the case, and it was a grossly irresponsible allegation that he made in the Press and Journal on 10 May.
Due to the massive construction costs—about £2·5 billion—the Government are committed to a single facility for the United Kingdom. One possible result of the hon. Member's desire for an independent Scotland could be separate repositories north and south of the border. Were that to happen, such duplication could entail literally billions of pounds of needless expenditure, because the infrastructure and engineering costs would be exceptionally high, regardless of the eventual capacity of any repository.
The Government give the highest possible priority to safety. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand why the Government cannot be swayed in their central determination to pursue in-depth investigations thoroughly, conscientiously and, above all, with the national interest constantly in mind. That is what UK Nirex has been doing at Dounreay—no more, and no less.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.